If it is on Facebook it is suspect.
5
Everyone hates Facebook, Twitter, and social media... yet we all have no problem using it when it aligns with our message or POV.
Blaming media, tech, or whatever will not change two facts: 1) if you don't like social media you can easily close your account, and 2) it is incredibly stupid, and dangerous, to ask any company or individual to take on a censorship role.
Be careful what you wish for.
2
Simple solution - don’t use Facebook, don’t subscribe to Facebook and it’s lies. Read the New York Times cover to cover online. Enjoy educating yourself - “be true to yourself and .... “it will follow as the day does the night.”
4
Looks like unpatriotic Facebook ought to go—especially Zuckerberg
3
How to handle Facebook? Find real friends that are interesting in spending time with you. These social media platforms are best a trivial and stupid while stealing your privacy. Just log off and delete the app. Same for twitter.
4
The internet was incredibly more innocent before SelfieBook came along. Almost w/o fail, monetizing something changes it, tilting its value toward the monetizer.
2
Delete Facebook.
6
Comparing Fox News to facebook is apples to oranges.
First, Fox is unabashedly pro Trump and and is well known for GENERATING lies.
Second, the Fox audience is largely old white people (angry bigoted white ones, mostly).
facebook is infinitely more powerful because of the scope of its audience. It is insidious because the most insane falsehoods can gain traction within minutes and pollute the political discussion overnight.
The point made in this article is that facebooks essential design creates this messenger of misinformation.
While there are some lovely things happening on fb it is also the seedbed for evil and the gaming of people's minds - especially the gullible.
I left fb behind after reading about the Cambridge Analytic scandal. It is a time sucking and mind manipulating monstrosity hiding behind pictures of kitties and grandkids.
4
Delete, deactivate, disengage. It's simple, you should try it.
7
I've moved to Mastodon and get my "news feed" right here on a paid subscription to NYT. Supporting actual journalism that respects facts through paid subscriptions is the only way to combat fakery.
You get what you pay for!
5
Zucky is an existential threat to
democracy.
Please, someone send him back
to his parents' basement
4
If people are ignorant enough to believe deceptive, misleading and outright false advertising regarding a candidate, then we deserve the president we get, which sadly, is the horrific reality that we have been dealing with for the past three years.
Believe nothing, absolutely nothing that you see on Facebook. Stop posting stories from media sources that you've never heard of. If you think a story is either too awful to believe or too good to be true, do some research and check out its validity on either snopes or another unbiased fact-checking site before you post it to your timeline so all your friends can comment on it ad nauseam until someone finally mentions that the story isn't true.
Stop being stupid! Trump said early on in his campaign that he "loved the uneducated." We clearly see now why he said it. Even the well-educated among us fall victim to the allure of posting something outrageous, that fits our worldview, on social media. Stop it...or we're going to end up with another dictator in the White House.
4
"His platform will do it naturally"... not to mention misguided employees.
If you pay attention to what's going on inside Facebook - as reported in reputable media sources - it's clear that on the inside...it's become very much a cult.
The "following" among Facebook's users is only a drop in the ocean compared to the "following" that goes on inside Facebook. Facebook has its own view of the world, its own moral code...and now wants its own form of monetary currency.
We have Facebook to thank for the exacerbation of following itself in our society.
Couple that with the negative impact of social media on interpersonal relationships, attention spans, lack of privacy safeguards, and the astonishingly damning involvement of Facebook in the Cambridge Analytica scandal and its impact on the 2016 elections - listen to the "Fresh Air" interview with Cambridge Analytica whistle blower Christopher Wylie by Terry Gross from this past week - and it is clear that not only were our 2016 elections comprised significantly...
...but it is only a matter of degrees how much the 2020 election will be compromised. That's not drama...that's inevitable; Facebook is beyond anyone's control, including Zuckerberg, who frankly doesn't want to rein it in, nor does he see why he should, that much is clear.
The enemy is in plain sight...it's Facebook and us...and the tech tools we worship like Gods.
2
Yes.
Another article about how facebook is bad... from another pundit who still uses facebook. It's hard to understand why that is. Please explain.
Stop writing these articles and just quit facebook.
1
Bummer.
1
Facebook delanda est.
Why is it that every one of the "NYT Picks" is slamming facebook? A bit biased, no? Facebook is not the issue; social media is not the issue. The foundational issue is money-hungry, power-hungry people with a lack of ethics. They will put their own goals above the welfare of the country. Disinformation campaigns are not new. They are always hard to police. When we can't even police fox news for the truth, which is only one outlet, how on earth do we expect facebook to police their millions of poster?
69
@Lisa Cummings
Fox reaches millions but even then it is local and fragmented. FB reaches billions with unified messages. It's not comparable.
54
@Lisa. Well, for one thing Facebook isn’t bought and paid for by the GOP. The amount of advertising it gets from political ads is a drop in their bucket. And, it is ridiculously cash-rich to the point where it can do whatever it wants.
No, Facebook is specifically doing this to fight to keep their company whole, ever since Elizabeth Warren quite unwisely stated publicly that she wanted to break them up. They’re defending themselves, as they see it, and if that means the country gets 4 more years of Trump, that’s better to Zuckerberg than getting broken up. Now most of Facebook’s EMPLOYEES don’t necessarily feel that way, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
39
@Lisa Cummings
Yes, disinformation campaigns are not new, nor are money-hungry, power-hungry people with a lack of ethics. Facebook and other social media just make it far easier. Facebook has a symbiotic relationship with "money-hungry, etc." people. They drive its advertising revenue, so everyone gets what they want. Similar to Fox News' relationship with its viewers. I don't know what the answer is but if we don't find one reality as we know it will be gone.
38
Facebook has become the worst entity this world has ever experienced by allowing blatant liars to influence gullible people. It has also taken away intimate contact between humans and created a fantasy of “friends” and does nothing but boost ones ego through deceit. Facebook should be banned. It has become an excellent tool to spread corruption. And Zuckerberg has turned into a greedy little liar himself. Fb should be regulated instead of letting Zuck rule it solely to sate his greed. This world has turned into a fake fairytale.
Facebook should immediately stop accepting ANY political ads. Period. If they won't then Congress should intervene legislatively.
3
"Senator Elizabeth Warren’s plans to break up Facebook an “existential” threat to the company and one he would fight. "
While I have no love for Zukerberg and FB and support efforts to break not only FB but all other way too big organizations (first and foremost Amazon), I cannot fault him for this attitude. Of course he won't mutely look his company being piecemeal-ed.
He will fight and hopefully he will lose, if it ever comes to EW being in the situation to do something about this.
But, she will not, even if she by any sort of miracle wins, since once they win, they turn back on title-making promises or ideas.
Remember 'hope' and 'change'?
1
No need to worry about Facebook nuking Warren's Campaign. She will do that by herself.
First, she is a woman. Those people that didn't vote for Hilary are not likely to vote for a woman this time around. (Think voter registration, gerrymandering and the Electoral College.)
Second, the media and I don't mean Fox News Media, I mean "mainstream media" with their liberal bias will continue to attack her and any other Democrat that is running.
Finally by the time the Democrats (their own worst enemy) get done attacking each other, we will have trump again.
Ahh, but blame Zuckerberg. Just like trump finds others to blame.
1
Remember, Clinton won the popular vote. With much more baggage than Warren. Yes, people will vote for a woman.
3
Word to everyone -- do no believe everything you read on social media or hear on news shows. Most of the time, opinions are being aired, oftentimes presented as fact.
If you feel your anger rising, you've been rising like a fish to the bait.
Histrionic news is what sells ads. Even our beloved New York Times knows that.
Finding the truth in any situation takes time, reading and motivation. But you don't need a talking head or an opiniator to explain what you yourself just read or heard.
Each person must do their own analysis, weigh both sides of an issue and decide what they think is true.
Zuckerberg, and any others who knowingly air or print lying campaign ads or opinions can be sued for slander and/or libel.
Elizabeth Warren is the top opponent to Trump. Any lies said or written about her that damage her reputation or career are subject to laws concerning slander, libel and damages.
Zuckerberg wants to damage her Presidential candidacy and he has said he will use Facebook to spread lies.
I hope she wins and breaks his monopoly. If not, I hope she sues him and Facebook.
The potential for a social media platform and all of the lies, illusions, smoke, and mirrors that support it--on the national as well as the individual and personal level--to have a major influence on our democracy is terrifying. But, we can't put all of this on Zuckerberg. Knowing the problems caused by social media platforms in the lead-up to the 2016 election, any American who continues to use those platforms is complicit in all of this.
People, if you want a platform for conveniently sharing news and photos with close friends and family members, create a Google doc where you can all post your news, and a Google folder to share your pictures with each other. There, done.
Oh, but wait? You'd rather stick with social media, as destructive as they are, because you are so insecure you need the "likes"? Have a secret hope that one day something you post will go viral, and you'll be a star! Ah, got it.
3
I see comments here by people who acknowledge how dangerous Facebook can be, yet they stay on Facebook for the sake of a few photographs or the dubious "connections" they have with FB friends, as if there's no other way to stay connected.
To those people I say: ask yourself which is more important? Your pictures and FB likes? Or your democracy.
Dump Facebook. Take a stand.
2
"Facebook’s algorithm might not be picking which person ends up on the ticket, but it’s providing our most divisive politicians with something nearly as precious: a bottomless pool of attention."
I certainly agree, however, if one thinks about it, so do our two inescapable MSM news sources.
The thinking American has been hung out to dry.
1
Along with the betrayal of my privacy, this manipulated data base is why I ditched Facebook. Zuckerberg and others have enriched themselves by dictating what their users should see.
Let's see them for what they are doing. They may one day be seen as the Judas goat for free thinking and democracy.
Zuckerberg is willing to allow unacceptable postings by “politicians” but not those by hate mongers and racists in order to hurt Warren’s chances of gaining the presidency. However, Z. can do what he wants until the law steps in to control is irresponsible actions and abuses of the public good. I quit FB two years ago when I found out he was selling my personal information.
1
The medium (FB) is available to everybody. Learn to manage and play it up to your own purposes instead of being a sitting duck watching how Putin and Trump use it to their advantage.
Facebook is infested with fake profiles and closed/open hate groups. FB allows the fake accounts to proliferate and spread lies, hate and divisive rhetoric. FB then allows this through hateful memes, photos and blatantly fake propaganda. They fail at the simple things or as this article intimates, FB allows it because of the ad revenue. If submitted ideas, but never get feedback. Some are simple, for example, if the FB profile pic is a pet, inanimate object, flag, cartoon, landscape, etc. often it's a fake profile. The name Facebook doesn't require a profile photo of a "face". The Month and Year the account is opened should be placed prominently on the first page. So many simple steps can be taken to prevent fake accounts to spread hate, lies, and divisiveness.
All Facebook notifications should come with warning from the Surgeon General.
All Zuckerberg cares about is money and power, very much like the President. He could care less about truth in advertising.
1
It's ironic--or perhaps just plain hypocritical--that when Obama harnessed Facebook to get elected it was good. (FBs co-founder joined the campaign). Team Obama crowed about how they used it to outfox those stodgy old Republicans.
But when Trump harnessed Facebook to his advantage, it presented an existential threat to democracy and should be broken up.
So, which is it ... a good or evil? I supposed it depends on whether your team won or lost.
1
How many times has Mark Zuckerberg been called before Congress? How many contrite statements has he made? Later he didn't bother to come and sent Sheryl Sandberg instead. He was too busy raking in the bucks to bother with a mere trifle such as an Congressional hearing. It didn't help that some of the old graybeards on the Hill made fools of themselves by showing just how inept they were in technology.
Zuckerberg probably laughed all the way to the bank. Trump and his ilk are continuing to make Zuckerberg even more fabulously wealthy.
First and foremost, The United States of America is Not a Democracy. If it were, there would be no elections. The People (Demos) would vote the rules directly (Crat). The founders believed people were ignorant and needed Representatives. The United States of America is a Republic mashing Represent and Public.
As far back as we can look in history politicians lie.
Document how Trump hired illegal aliens and paid the cheap wages because he did not want to pay Working Americans a fair wage.
Oil offers few jobs while solar installations are Real Jobs done by people with roofing, carpentry & electrical skills (ALL Blue Collar workers) Trump is against America having this Jobs.
He & Ivanka have things Made in China because he wants to have a much higher profit at the expense of the American Workers.
He and the Republicans have pushed to Kill the American Solar Manufacturing business while Helping China build a solar industry ALL at the expense of American workers.
Trumps HATES American workers and he has shown this time and time again.
Think these things will not get clicks?
When he lies pile on his lies and show how they Harm Americans and American workers.
Democrats have been extremely disorganised and everyone wants to cry and say Unfair!
Life is NOT Fair. Look around and showmen where life is fair.Of course we want it tome fair and do our best to make things fair But life's not fair.
Stop whining and start hitting Trump in real terms and use short simple words.
1
I guess old Zuck can try, but I think the US population is catching onto him, and his greedy, self-serving sociopathy. His reputation is very damaged, and people are starting question the part of their lives they spend with addictive, destructive Facebook.
How about adding to political ads a section of links to contrary opinions?
Anyone could add a link.
No bipedal hominid should be allowed the power of billions of dollars. ARE WE FOOLS, PEOPLE?
WHEN WILL WE STAND UP? This Republican philosophy of private property is killing our society. It now threatens life on earth.
This is insane! NO BIPEDAL HOMINID SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE POWER OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
One is wondering now. Is humanity fundamentally insane? To a large extend one must say yes.
So the ultimate political situation for fb is a far far right Dictatorship Utopia?
Well, America is a capitalist country, so Zucky surely IS entitled to rake in his billions and billions off us consumers, and while it may be horrific, for we, the Citizenry, those at the very tip-top of the Pyramid will live happily ever after.
As will their progeny.
Long Live the King!
1
Zuckerberg needs to turn the reins over to someone. He's in over head.
Why has the word “existential” now lost its meaning? It seems to be a word the media used indiscriminately.
The bottom line is this— we are a bunch of stupid and lazy people that can’t be bothered to read and digest long articles or detailed information about policies. So instead we fall for snazzy pictures, memes, short and hollow tweets, and meaningless slogans. And using that nonsense and non-information, people think it is sufficient knowledge on which to pick the leaders of our society.
There are no more excuses to make for ourselves. There is a reason that “info-tainment” took over a long time ago. There is a reason social platforms thrive and people choose to get their “information” from them. People would rather hear angry people yelling their opinions than read articles containing real facts. More people are interested in some celebrity spotted on a beach in a new bikini than they are in how our government is working and what our politicians are actually up to.
We have only ourselves to blame. Frankly, we need to grow up or the mess we are in will continue.
1
Is it OK that the NYT (and every other media outlet) directly influences every election, both through express endorsements and through implied endorsements via other editorial content? Which is worse, a platform that allows people to influence elections, or a platform that itself influences elections?
Maybe this time around, Zuck and Facebook could refuse any ads paid for in rubles and coming from banks in Cypress?
Just a thought.
1
If Facebook is feeding you disinformation, feed it some back. Click on things you would never buy. Like things that go against your way of thinking. Go to places you don't agree with. Let their algorithms figure that one out.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Facebook:
Just say no.
1
It's not just Facebook that offers the unscrupulous an opportunity to tilt elections -- it's social media in general that does so. If you engineer s.m. algorithms that reward "hits" with prominence, you attract increasing attention to the highest-ranking ones. The s.m. posts that receive most attention are those that promote outrage and scandal. It's the "car wreck" phenomenon known so well to highway patrol officers. Traffic always slows down and loiters around the scenes where there's chaos and bustle and smash ups. Drivers slow down to see. So do those who cruise the superhighways of social media.
With social media, however, there is no "highway patrol."
The people who built it haven't paid much attention -- in some instances, any attention -- to how to police it. They really only seem interested in raking in the $$$ it brings them.
There is a solution that I suspect will never be adopted by most social media users -- ditch it. Stop your social media engines and get out. Leave the keys behind and just walk away from it all. If you don't 'cruise," you can't 'bruise.'
Boycott (or better yet dump) Facebook
Useless 21st-century garbage that no one needs, making a lot of money off the personal information and choices of its users.
There are plenty of other choices to connect with other human beings.
1
I wish people would leave FB alone. If you don’t like it or don’t trust it, then DONT join it. It is a voluntary social media platform and if you allow posts, comments on FB make you decide who to vote for ..... well you’ve got problems alright, but they’re not because of FB.
No. It can't and won't, in spite of Zuckerberg and an ugly assortment of Russian bots welcomed and empowered by same.
Learn to deal with it.
We all know that facebook is a destructive force, why discuss it, quit facebook.I joined several years ago to check on something for my nearly blind niece but I cancelled my account that same week, it took me 2 weeks to be rid of it.
Take a good look at the people you know who spend a lot of time on facebook, they are a bunch of losers, you don't want to be like them. Quit facebook.
1
The answer is simple. Quit Facebook. You will survive. And thrive. Speaking as a non user of social media, be aware that there is life and news outside Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. reclaim your life and get back all those hours (and your brain and soul) by putting down your devices and start talking directly with other humans.
Zuckerberg is an amoral sociopathic hypocrite, driven solely by profit. He will sell user information to the highest bidder, but then pretend to be the great protector of free speech. He will crow about his encryption of user information as proof of his concern for user privacy, but at the same time will not cooperate with law enforcement to capture purveyors of sex trafficking of women and children. In this one area alone, he must be regarded as complicit in the torture and rape of young children where Facebook is used as a means to disseminate information and images. Ditto for all,of,the other social media platforms who refuse to work with law enforcement save children and woman. Shame on all of you.
1
Facebook is just like a self-driving car. It's a menace to human beings. Old media had editors and managers to make decisions about content. These were human beings, paid to evaluate the quality, veracity, and tone of their content. They could smell a rat more often than not. Facebook is a newspaper/bulletin-board run by computers. Computers are easy to hack... easy to fool... easy to scam... easy to manipulate.
This is the sort of automation that will either end humanity (Skynet) or will drive us to the UBI of Andrew Yang. I love the idea of UBI, but I fear that Skynet is more realistic. Computers are stupid. They parrot what their programers program.
1
So now we truly have a corporate titan to despise for his actions and belief of the sanctity of his trashy empire.
1
It's funny because Warren's entire resurgence has been thanks to misinformation on the part of her campaign and a complicit and lazy press. The biggest threat to her campaign right now is the (small) chance that the media will actually challenge her and her myriad plans. She is somehow getting credit for churning out plans that would be impossible to implement, pass and/or fund. If the press were to challenge her, even a little bit, Zuckerberg will have nothing to worry about.
The Walter Cronkite Republican observes that democracy is fundamentally dependent upon the ability of voters to recognize the propaganda in their media for what it is. The role of the free press in a free society is to expose the propaganda and its sources for what they are. If voters are not aware or choose to ignore this process there is no hope for democracy.
2
This article highlights the real threat to established media platforms to control the ideas around the political landscape, the genie is out of the bottle. Nothing will put it back in, and the only thing more scary than FB allowing political ads without filtering them is that they may be the ones instead to actually filter them, allowing only some of them according to their principles. The true paymasters of each ad should be disclosed as a fair consumer practice and foreign money barred if it is a violation of election law, from there the truth will be borne on the back of the best efforts to communicate to the masses.
1
This country has thrived on freedom of speech. I don't like the idea that a Mark Zuckerberg can manipulate this freedom with his alogarithisms. The answer may be to limit the size, and hopefully the influence, of his internet platforms. Once our government begins functioning again this should be a topic of debate by congress. The anti-trust laws of the last century cannot cope with the rise of the internet and its scope.
Until, reasonable and constitutional rules are worked out for Facebook and other net media, I would note that there is a great deal of "red meat" that the Democrat candidates could use against Trump with out actually lying: such phrases as "bringing about a Nazilike dictatorship" etc. Inflammatory postings need not be confined to the Republican candidates.
I deleted my FB account and haven't missed it for a second. I challenge all Americans to find a better way to stay in touch with friends and family. We did it before FB and we can do it without FB.
2
The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and the first amendment is subject to law, like everything else.
If Facebook took money funneled from foreign powers for the purpose of disrupting our elections and undermining our democratic process, it should face an existential threat, as should its CEO.
3
More and more of my Facebook friends simply don’t post or share political content, and some warn that they will block friends who do. It seems to be a sort of organic “originalist” movement to return Facebook to what we liked about it, that it was a way to keep up with each other, see photos of each others’ trips and children and birthdays, and share useful information with people who share our hobbies and interests. It seems to be working; I see less ugliness and almost no political ads. I do my political venting these days on Twitter (where even there I’m careful who I follow) and spare my Facebook friends my outrage. Zuckerberg may make lots of money from dirty political ads, but hopefully they will play to a smaller and smaller group of people.
2
A fairly simple solution to the problem of media like Facebook and Twitter, favoring lies and distortion over truth, is to bring back the Fairness Doctrine that Reagan abolished. It kept TV and radio reasonably honest for several decades, and the body of Fairness Doctrine decisions would provide plenty of guidance for regulation going forward.
5
The giagantic stretch of large corporations like Facebook measn they can get away with carrying libelous material, and the victims really cannot seek to be restored. Why? yu cannot usually track the source, and your need immense wealth to fund such an undertaking.
Like it or not, Facebook is not simple a conduit, even if it doesn't produce the materials on its pages. It serves much more as a newspaper or other media outlet, but, again, is remote from the end users, and recognizes no obligation to serve them. It provides a powerful structure for anyone with an axe to grind, and when the issues have to do with elections, the distortions have unmeasured power t influence people.
I don't have any pretense that I know how this should be constrained within the 1st amendment. But there must be a way to limit disinformation campaigns and obviously factitous "broadcasts>"
2
To me, this kinda does the opposite of what Zuckerberg wants. It undermines the credibility of anything you see on Facebook. So, all those ads that haven't been vetted at all for truth that will undoubtedly flood the platform will lead most of us to view ALL ADS on the social network as fake news, and we'll just ignore them. When advertisers realize that, they're know the ad space is less valuable and demand lower prices from Facebook. So, let them undermine their brand. It serves them right for pursuing money over truth in advertising. Well, it's really money over everything isn't it?
1
I don't understand. False and misleading political ads are aired on TV as a matter of course. Without the Fairness Doctrine, or something similar, that will cover all media this practice is going to continue. Why is Facebook held to a higher standard than television? Or, more to the point, why isn't the a higher standard set by law for all forms of media?
An aside that is really more important: If you base your votes on advertisements, you are an ill-informed voter. You owe it to yourself and everyone else to fact check before you cast your vote. The internet makes this an easy thing to do. Don't throw your vote away based on spurious advertising claims.
2
@krw false and misleading ads are on TV and in the newspaper every day. It has been three years of it now nonstop. If you watch some cable shows you will know nothing else about what’s going on in the world. Only Trump Hatred.
1
This "Facebook issue" is one that calls on Americans to send FB a message demanding they practice higher moral and ethical standards. It is time for FB to stop allowing their technology to be used to interfear with free and fair elections, that evidence shows was used in the 2016 election and continues now. FB needs to monitor and refuse to allow the desemination of lies and propoganda that target our elections.
Though it is difficult to end those cute birthday reminders, or refrain from our happy moments with adorable videos of kittens and puppies, or to stop the convenience of having an easy vehicle to view and share pictures with family and friends, etc, it is time to disconnect from FB.
Oh, horror of horrors, many of us say NO. Okay, maybe enough of us will boycott FB.
If we criticize politicians for putting party over country, we too, need a backbone.
It is time for the public to let FB know that we demand their company stop allowing their technology to be used for spreading misinformation, lies, and propoganda that tear apart our Constitution, rule of law and democracy. This distruction of democracy goes beyond the US, we can see it spreading throughout the world.
BOYCOTT FACEBOOK.
Let them know we demand more and better.
2
Another company should immediately launch a new facebook...a democracy-respecting, ethical, and honest platform. I would close down on FB and jump ship in 5 seconds.
I believe in the world of trump many millions would do that same immediately. Each day I ponder if it will be my last on FB. If Zuckerberg continues his dangerous folly of thinking only of his multi-billions, the day will be sooner than later.
7
I can imagine the difficulty in trying to determine what's true or false in political ads, whether done by machine or by humans (although with trump, it's pretty easy).
How about Facebook just banning political ads all together? Yeah, they'd lose some revenue, but so what?
Otherwise, they're part of the problem.
4
The fact that so many Democrats are (so far) unable to wean themselves from FB tells those paying attention that the Dems are entirely capable of loosing an election they have already won.
2
Here's an idea. Don't use facebook. Or keep it to a minimum. It's actually easy to survive and thrive without. Its relevance and impact can be diminished by simply not depending upon it so much. There is a world outside that platform, and "social" media on a whole. It's really social manipulation. There are many means of communicating, and acquiring information, without utter dependency upon it. It's actually quite liberating and empowering to do so.
5
If people are still allowing Facebook to influence their political opinions, then Trump is exactly what we deserve. It's not that hard to install an extension to your browser and filter out the chaff and the bots. Meanwhile, stop friending people who aren't really your friends. Do you really care that much about following the life of some guy you talked to once in high school fifteen years ago? Do his opinions matter to you that much?
2
I dismiss people as soon as they use the word 'embolden.' Thinking instead of mere mimicry would be most appreciated.
1
Facebook posts should be forced to have citation links, or be labeled "OPINION" or "ART" in bold red letters, depending on the actual content.
Also, Zuk should be forced to give fb users a cut of his profits. He's making truckloads of money off of our opinions, likes/dislikes, and posts after all.
1
I would love to ban lies by politicians, but how would Facebook, or we, enforce it? Fact-checkers for newspapers run into gray areas involving misstatements and distortions that aren't quite out-and-out lies, but they can do a lot of damage to the truth. Of course, if we could police false advertising by politicians, maybe we could go on to police claims by other ads that buying certain products would make people happier, sexier, more of anything good. That would be great, but it could lead to economic collapse.
So this was insightful but you left out the fact that for some unknown reason it is not against the law to lie about another canidate or about what your candidate achieved. Why are political adds not regulated to have nothing but the truth told?
2
Zuckerberg always looks like he's haunted by what he's unleashed on the world, which was, let's face it, a technologically impressive way to rate how attractive people are. His sense of responsibility to society was always lacking.
3
Of course not, Warren is/has been doing the credibility damage to her own self.
2
I’m not on Facebook. I’m a Democrat and a woman. And I wouldn’t vote for her.
1
I don't particularly care about Warren. I think she digs her own holes and if anyone should get props for stoking angst it should be her.
But Facebook is a larger problem. It's an attractive nuisance, shall we say. It enables and attracts people who have an ax to grind and gives them an open platform to grind it. It enables people who should be out in the world interacting but don't feel comfortable doing it. It reinforces bad ideas and group think. It negates reasoning.
It has zero value and it's a huge waste of time. It's like soft drinks and candy. Great for the energy but ultimately terrible for the body.
Humans are pleasure abusers by nature.
Facebook is no exception. People will just keep pushing that button that scratches their itch until we all die.
I would much prefer watching Warren nuke Facebook than vice-versa. Social media has done an enormous amount of damage to our democracy and to democracies around the world. By changing the rules on Facebook so political ads can tell baldfaced lies, Zuckerberg has made it crystal clear where his allegiance lies. No doubt he made that concession to curry favor with the mad king. If Trump wins again, I will be deleting my account.
2
@wildwest Agree. My first thought too.
1
Is there really anyone who believes that free speech will prevent Democrats from winning?
1
I guess this makes that we can’t afford to wait for the election.
Over the last few months I have been weaning myself off Facebook. I barely go on it anymore. I feel it’s a time sucker time and little about it is real or authentic. I am making my social interactions the old fashioned way, in person or through direct contact, and getting my information from newspapers, reports and the people around me. I do sometimes feel I am ‘missing out,’ but I’ve learned I can very well do without the fake news and lives on it..
Speaking for myself, I have minimal interest in Facebook. Are people really that interested in it?
2
This article makes me want to vote for Warren even more than before. And I will shut down off FB through the election. I cannot abide seeing those awful propaganda ads again. The ones against HRC were so bad, so divisive, and despicable. It's hard to imagine any amount of money that would be worth allowing Trump and his deplorables a platform to continue creating such toxicity in our country, our elections. Or to allow Trump the opportunity that could help him win again.
Zuckerberg ought to be ashamed. But I'm sure he's not only unashamed, he's laughing and strutting all the way to the bank. And I'm not buying his 'I'm just an innocent geek' act anymore. He knows exactly what he's doing.
Breaking up monopolies creates more opportunities for new companies and competition (which is good for consumers). More companies create more jobs. It used to be the American way. Now we have the Capitalist Greed way, everything is about more, more, more vs. make do with, and Appreciate, what you've got. Something Zuckerburg has not learned.
I'll take a pass on FB for now and stay in touch with friends through email, phonecalls, text and maybe I'll try Instagram. I'll make do and appreciate my friends without FB.
@Ellen S. "everything is about more, more, more vs. make do with, and Appreciate, what you've got. "
Playbook: Make people of ordinary means feel like they're in danger because they aren't rich whether it's true or not. This causes them to work harder, and a few of them will even get rich. The rest will just work harder. Meanwhile, make all of them feel like they can get temporary happiness by buying various trinkets.
It works. It's how we got where we are.
Facebook needs to be leashed by the Government. Zuckerberg is to dangerous to be let by himself doing as he pleased.
1
Mr. Zuckerberg, as we call him, has demonstrated he is a capable liar, a manipulator and a smarmy ingratiotor par excellence.
He will, and he demonstrably has, make claims diametrically opposed to suit the occasion or the argument he wishes to make.
Mark habitually indicates his helplessness in the face of technological necessity, his desire to do only good thwarted by the demands of the medium in which he grabs his vast and unwarranted fortune.
Of course he will submarine Warren, or anyone else he perceives attempting to come between him and his money or his power.
But bear in mind Zuckerberg is no reporter. He has no claim to any sort of privilege. He may as well be running a pushcart vegetable vending operation for all the special consideration he deserves.
If he seeks to influence an election in any way beyond simple, limited, individual donations and run of the mill argumentation, he needs to go to prison. And stay long enough to clear his head and maybe decide to do something honest, something constructive with his massively over-privileged little life.
The invention and popularization of the World Wide Web made international and domestic terrorism possible. Facebook and other social media have facilitated terrorism as well as criminal networks. That, if for no other reason, is why WWW and social media algorithms in general must be regulated and modified to dampen not only such threats to civilization but also the sort of election manipulation that Warzel is concerned about.
1
Many here will vote for Warren out of Trump hatred.
They will voluntarily allow their retirement accounts to dwindle, their civil rights , their healthcare, their livelihoods to fade.
Only because of hatred.
So sad for those people.
1
Warren is going to have her work cut out for her, should she secure the nomination. The risk of her disrupting banking, healthcare, tech, energy, and any other billion $ industry is too great for the powers that be (even if those in power call themselves “liberals”) to sit idly.
It’s disheartening to hear about comments from Zuckerberg and efforts by Facebook to undermine a candidate that is obviously better for humanity than Trump, but I’m not surprised. This is just the tip of the iceberg in what will become a multifaceted effort to tip the scales in favor of any candidate that is “pro business”, even if that means paving the way for a demented sociopath.
2
Facebook started out as an arrested adolescent invention at Harvard copying someone else’s idea when Mark recognized the potential for an internet gossip depository.
I’m waiting for the same arrested adolescent to explode in a self centered tantrum in response to criticism about its internet monopoly.
If Facebook partners with Trump May god help the survival of America’s democracy!
2
When I lie, I pay for it unlike Zuckerberg or anyone who has gotten rich by doing nothing.
If you base your vote on Facebook ads that is YOUR fault and no one else’s.
Also, for all the people calling to make Facebook responsible for ‘misinformation’ (a hilarious suggestion written in the comments section of a newspaper that lies everyday!): have you ever considered how vast the internet is? If you believe that Facebook ads shape opinion (I don’t) then you must believe that people are so credulous that they are liable to believe anything that passes in front of their eyes. If you believe that then the situation is already utterly hopeless and banning ads on one single site is not going to change anything.
2
The shocking an terrifying thing is how MANY of my friends and neighbors get "their news" from social media.
Maybe Warren needs to begin a campaign on Facebook NOW...
Donald Trump is a Duck (picture of duck)
Facebook allows false political advertising
In 2020, listen to political advertising from reliable sources.
Not Facebook.
Senate Republicans turn against Trump, Demand Impeachment!
Facebook allows false political advertising.
In 2020, listen to political advertising from reliable sources.
Not Facebook.
Run those ads often enough, well targeted enough, to the right people enough--right on Facebook. No one will ever believe anything they see advertised on Facebook again. Mark Zuckerberg will change his "policy" so fast Trump's head will spin.
The problem lies more with the users of Facebook than with Facebook itself. Too many people fall for the lies and conspiracies. They can’t get enough of them. And the less than honest know this. As the saying goes, “When the ducks quack, feed them.” That’s what success on social media is all about.
The party who penned this needs to get a handle on the meaning(s) of the word natural.
A dandelion growing in the yard is natural, absolutely nothing about Facebook is natural. Facebook and all other social media platforms are products designed with intent to exploit the human condition for maximal financial gain. Not natural. Period.
Stop it!
The same can be said of newspapers and television programming that dwell on disasters both natural and political to lasso viewers and boost advertising revenues.
The algorithms that underlie advertising revenues favor the divisive and the disastrous because users can't look away. It's the same phenomenon that causes traffic to back up in the opposite direction of a terrible car wreck on the interstate. We have to slow down to have a good look at what we really don't even want to see.
Why does a hurricane cause TV weather people to flock to the beach, wade into the surf and lean in to the wind?
Disasters sell. Divisiveness sells. Ratings/clicks = $
1
Facebook will lose its face should it try to dirty Warren.
I have FB account since 2008. Many friends have it.
We will DELETE FB if it goes dirty on Democrats.
Be advised FB : Do not breach 2020 elections.
Everybody comes with some form of personal agenda...
Whether it be communication on social media or a Town Hall meeting...
I digest as much information as I can.
Digesting meaning efforting to see what agenda might bring to most benefits to a society
hesitant to anything that doesn’t have a personal bias
Feel that Warren’s agenda is cringeworthy at times
And FBs post can be seen through
Really not hard to do
It should become accepted that everything on Facebook is a lie. And Zuckerberg profits from lies.
Some people like lies. The even pay for them when the buy the Enquirer and other such drivel.
But socially accepting what's on Facebook should the equivalent as believing in the Great Pumpkin.
Why do people still have Facebook accounts? It's basically a tool for spreading corruption and fake news.
3
Charlie, I appreciated your insights in the piece, and I realize that you probably didn't write the headline, but I strenuously object to the casual use of the term "nuke" in it, because with Trump in the White House, and with his boneheaded comments about our ability to use a nuclear bomb if we wanted to, well, need I say more?
The problem of Facebook is simple.
Just quit.
2
It might be a good time to investigate how much current Facebook political advertising revenue is being paid in rubles.
If I were a young computer geek looking for something to do with my life, I think it would be creating real competition to face book that exists for the good of humanity and not for the greed of its owners.
Let Facebook become just another fever swamp of right wing nuttiness.
Advertising corrupts and co-opts human beings. It shapes our decisions and fuels our appetites for consumption above all else. Whether it is soap flakes or a politician matters little.
We do not stop to consider if we really need that giant SUV to be "manly". Will that particular beer make ourselves and everyone flocking around us smile? What exactly does it mean to "make American great again"? We do not ask.
Advertising offers us a gauzy image of what we want our lives to look like with none of the attendant downsides. We do not see our paychecks get pumped into our gas tanks nor connect our fossil fuel use to direct planetary harm. No beer drinkers on television kneel in the bathroom vomiting up the product they consumed. Success for politicians mostly guarantees their own enrichment and not ours.
Unquestioning acceptance of advertising inexorably leads to the proliferation of "stuff" in our homes, a diminution of the planet and gun-wielding liberators of non-existent children hidden in non-existent basements in places like Comet Ping Pong Pizza. Or much worse as any in El Paso or Ft. Hood or Sutherland Springs or Orlando or Aurora or Parkland can tell you.
Are you more than your internet avatar and your likes? Take a week off of technology and consider who you are, where you are and what you want to be. Will those standing around your grave say you gave good retweets or that you helped others?
The only reason this sort of thing works is that the consumer (you and me) don't monitor and regulate our own minds. This is why nasty gossip works so well to destroy us in real life. This is our opportunity to render these tactics useless. Let's do it.
Zuckerberg like Trump has one priority-himself. FB has nothing to add to society. He has done nothing other than spread hate overall.
2
Zuckerberg is conducting very dishonest business in Europe.
He constantly cheats with the European laws, making believe that he is complying while in the back he and Facebook are always finding new ways to cheat and pay no taxes, steal private data, when he promised to obey the laws.
With Amazon and the others it is the image of the dishonest American business in Europe.
Stealing, infringing, occupying illegally, monopolizing, etc..
This article indicates why saying that we are doomed as a nation is a gross understatement.
We are doomed as a species.
When we look back in 25 years at the levels of violence hate and just plain despair that will be the norm on this planet, just remember that we could have done something about it.
The Internet and cable news (Fox News) are the cause. There have been men as crazy as Trump who wanted to be president. It took the irresponsible cable and internet offerings to allow us to destroy ourselves.
You can't even blame Trump voters. His lies are like heroin to them and they are addicted.
Spend time now in nature and with your loved ones. If you have a special place to visit - do so. And store up those good memories for the rough years to come.
Heaven help us all.
Facebook is not the enemy. Mark Zuckerberg is not the enemy. Facebook is like the telephone, or your tv. Most of you guys have lost sight of reality.
Is the op-ed writer serious? "Facebook’s willingness to let politicians lie sets a worrying precedent," he says. All those who want Facebook deciding what's a lie -- and censoring it -- raise your hands.
As I understand the chronology, after a meeting with Trump, Zuckerberg announced that Facebook would not apply its alleged ban on false advertising to political ads.
This benefits the most unscrupulous politicians and foreign intervenors, and at the same time fattens Facebook's bottom line. A toxic combination but irresistible to folks with insatiable greed. ahttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/04/facebook-exempts-political-ads-ban-making-false-claims
Just #DeleteFacebook and you will be happier, have more time, less anxiety, and don't worry, something better will come along. That's how the free market works. Facebook is hopelessly broken.
1
So Mark Zuckerberg is again joining Russia, China and who knows what other countries in attempting to reelect Donald Trump in 2020. That's quite a hill for Democrats to climb, but at least Democrats know this time.
If you care about democracy, leave Facebook. Now.
1
The americans seem to be obsessed with lies, but very little is done about it. Crying for Facebook or any social media is not action, The antidote to liars is education, and information. When the USA so willingly gave up the internet neutrality, they actually agreed to be dog food to any manipulator anywhere in the world.
People need to put their Facebook accounts in the cooler. Read papers and books, text your friends, call your family, write your congressperson, browse the internet, listen to the radio, watch the news on mainstream TV and maybe walk your dog, talk to your neighbors. Stop giving Facebook access to your life. Like a smarter person said, YOU are their product, you are being sold.
1
I haven't looked at my FB account more than five times this calendar year. Follow my lead. Use e-mail to contact friends and family.
Obviously, Russia has nothing on Zuckerberg.. who in my opinion is commiting something close to treason... Warren needs to sue if any misinformation appears for billions... because it an attack on truth isn't an attack on democracy I don't know what is.
Time for Congress to enact a law that prohibits political ads on social platforms also misinformation ads... and all candidates must be clearly ID'd as to party and the entity placing the ad named at the start of the ad. "Today's ad is paid for by the Koch Bros. and is for the benefit of Prez Trump. Elizabeth Warren will bring your the kind of one payer medical care you don't want and starve the insurance companies so they can't pay huge dividends -- whoops pay for the medical procedures they permit you to undergo. If you want worse medical care than now and higher taxes vote for Elizabeth Warren." E.g.
1
Billionaire Zuckerberg is in business to make more money, as is his company.
Talk about a sorcerer's apprentice for evil!
Hasn't he earned enough? Can't he just stop his company making money from corrupting our country?
Doesn't he have a wife and child now that he cares about? If so, he should be more worried about the future than another single dollar earned, let alone the world's billions.
Corruption and greed don't have to be nasty like Trump. Exploitation and looting have become the only standard, the norm. The guy who helped create this monster should, if he has a soul, say enough!
Liz Warren for President. She's the only one who comes close to being clever and knowledgeable enough to stop this runaway train from going over the cliff and taking us all with it.
Otherwise, I guarantee everyone, the planet will reject its unwise and greedy apex predator. Let us count the ways ...
2
“With its algorithmic mandate of engagement over all else, Facebook has redefined what it means to be a good candidate — and provided a distinct natural advantage to those who distort the truth and seek to divide.”
Too long to be a bumper sticker, but a perfect summary of the most important political disease of our time.
58
Facebook is a never-ending assault on freedom, democracy and basic human decency. That it has played a significant, if not instrumental, role in undermining democracies globally is not a matter of debate. That it has no regard for the privacy of its users in its monetization of every last scrap of user data is not a matter of debate. That history will come to record Facebook as a key instrument in the enablement and implementation of dictatorships worldwide is done.
The debasement of modern civilization, all so Mark Zuckerberg can become even more wealthy.
1
Zuckerberg should try to redeem himself -- Facebook should adopt a policy of no political advertising period. That doesn't solve all the problems but it would help.
No conflict-of-interest problem here for Zuckerberg. He's completely aligned with his bizarre algorithm, designed to stuff ads down the throats of unwilling users; he welcomes lies in campaign ads, which correspond with his algorithm; and he's not in the Facebook game to link friends -- it's all about money for him.
Am assuming he's a registered Republican. If not, he should be, in keeping with Trump's and elected Republicans disdain for truth and placing money before everything else.
I would love to see some competition to Facebook. Their algorithm reflects only my own point of view back at me, when I crave alternate points of view; I receive posts from only about 15 of my over 300 friends -- so the algorithm does not link friends; and I receive an ad for every 5 posts received -- the algorithm placing ad revenue over end users.
Zuckerberg may say he can do what he wants, because his service is free. I would argue that selling personal information for the purposes of creating lying political ads, made more heinous by strident emotional manipulation, promotes access to only biased information -- which serves Zuckerberg's company, but not unbiased elections.
A competitor is needed to Facebook. Users would leave it in droves.
Facebook needs to remediate it’s past actions and put Warren’s campaign in a disadvantageous position.
Facebook should be shut down. It is out of control. Nothing is truly free. There are plenty of other forms of communication.
3
A relatively significant low education component of the US electorate is also part of the problem. The inability to think critically makes if difficult to decipher fraudulent ads and claims—and that gives Facebook a highly disproportionate influence on American elections. Further, mandatory civics classes in our schools—seemingly a relic of the past—would help produce more thoughtful voters.
2
Thank you for this article. I just donated more money to Elizabeth Warren's campaign.
As a note to Mr. Zuckerberg, "Move fast and break things" does not apply to America's elections. Reign in your out of control platform, or we will elect people to do it for you.
5
The problem with Google, Facebook and social media in politics is that there is no requirement that the ad be stated as,a political ad or comment and from whom. If in bold letters in the beginning of the ad it displays that it is an ad or political commentary and from who this will cut down the problem. Now these ad seem to be organic and thus truthful when they are not. Of course we have a problem here thanks to Citizens United, that's Supreme Court. Now the biggest megaphone can shout the loudest lies and we don't even know who is paying and who is lying.
2
Some commenters have offered attention-worthy remedies. In the short term, Elizabeth Warren can fight back by creating maximally effective ads herself. It is possible to be both truthful and effective.
As an aside, I would also point out that Trump's re-election team apparently doesn't have much faith in the quality of their candidate. If they really thought he has done such a great job, they would not need to focus their campaign on smearing opposing candidates.
2
What this article is pointing out is the hack-ability of human brains. Facebook has an architecture that utilizes the Limbic of our brains to keep us engaged for their profit. Our brains are their commodity. And the 2016 election shows the dangers of what can happen when smart people unlock the code of what influences human behavior. Breaking up Facebook is probably not the way to solve this vulnerability. It will only mean that someone else will find another platform on which to build similar architecture now that they know the tried and true techniques. What we probably need is a set of rules / laws that would function like a safety code similar what we have for buildings the the ones adopted after the Triangle Shirt Factory fire or even for air travel after 9/11. It's like putting stop lights and stop signs on intersections that pose a risk of accident without them. That's instead of breaking up the road construction company that built them.
2
Why is Elizabeth Warren afraid of Facebook? It's not just a fear of the spread of misinformation or Russian interference. It's that Ms. Warren's campaign can't control Facebook and the wildfire nature of social media in general. That type of platform creates risk for a campaign as carefully manicured as hers. Take for example, Ms. Warren's refusal to answer the very reasonable question of how she will pay for medicare-for-all and if middle class taxes will go up? Her response is to avoid answering the question by stating that all healthcare costs will go down. Everyone knows she's desperate to avoid having to go on the record and say what we already know, that funding such a program will require raising taxes not just on the "rich". Why? Because once she does, platforms like Facebook will take that quote and share it with the world.
7
@John it’s not a wildfire; it’s a controlled burn run by algorithm. And foreign powers are lighting fires influencing our citizens. There is nothing “wild” about it. Completely man made.
Thanks for using a metaphor that completely undercuts your argument!
2
@John Maybe we could cut back on Presidential golf weekends to cover some of the cost of making sure everyone has healthcare.
Other Democrats should assure him that no matter what Democrat may get the nomination, no matter what Democrat may get elected, and certainly if Democrats win back the Senate and hold the House, they'll be coming for it and for him.
1
Facebook has decided to choose authoritarian rule rather than democracy in allowing political ads to say just whatever they want. Only one side in this political fight, Trump and his band of lying friends create ads without any true facts in them.
While I have never used facebook so I will not be swayed either way, I say ban all political ads until they can build something that is fair to all, especially to democracy. I didn't use Facebook because I felt that it was promoting a lack of privacy not because I am a luddite ( I spent my entire career in software and IT industries).
5
So many issues we face have very complex solutions. This one is easier; cancel your social media accounts.
6
I agree that Facebook is a serious threat to our democracy, but it isn't just Facebook....its the entire social media, which discourages intelligent dialogue between people with valuable viewpoints, and locks innocent people into an escalating tornado of "Group Think," where they only hear the opinions they want to hear ....thus losing touch with the humanity of those on the other side of the political spectrum.
However, I don't see how breaking up Zuckerberg's baby will solve the problem. When Teddy Roosevelt broke up Standard Oil and other trusts in the early 20th Century he did not solve the problems associated with the concentration of corporate power. Likewise, breaking up Facebook will not actually eliminate the social ills inherent in state-of-the-art targeting of consumers as they "friend" others who think just like them and consequently become victims of Group Think.
The social media is too big and too fast to screen for disinformation. Facebook cannot effectively do this. Nor could the government unless it wants to follow the Chinese model, which is probably worse. Althought advertisers have profited handsomely from the social media, the rest of our society has lost. The middle class is endangered each time small businesses are eliminated. Local newspapers and TV stations have had to cut their budgets. I think the entire social media should be shut down. The inconvenient truth is that anything less will not solve the problem.
1
The other way to look at it is a bit less complex. Warren's attack on FB is viewed by some as an attack on a successful private business, which reinforces her image as an anti-business crypto-socialist. I am not saying this is true. I actually like her policy ideas. But as political strategy this is really an unwise move on her part.
2
Our lives are not being enhanced by Facebook. It is too powerful, like Standard Oil and AT&T. I'm fine with breaking it up and I'm fine with holding it accountable for publishing malicious content. It they can't police their platform responsibly then yes, Facebook is too big.
3
I don't rely on Facebook for my political news. Oh yes, I do see political ads and political cartoons, etc. in my news feed that have been shared by others, but I don't even bother to read most of it and if I do choose to read anything, I certainly do not assume that it is true. Most of the political posts and ads from both the left and the right on Facebook that I have read are so far over the top that they make laugh.
2
There seems to be a predictable pattern shown here.
Oh the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom left us our Constit. and the Bill of Rights, forever valid, forever applicable.
Does anybody out there really believe that Franklin, Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton somehow were able to predict the computer driven world of social media?
Compare today to the handful of ragged newsprint daily publications that existed in 1780.
The volume of viral, algorithmic-fed misinformation is completely incomparable to the Bill of Rights era.
Or that Franklin etc were able to predict the inexpensive, easily repeatable semi-auto technology of the M16/AR15?
And on it goes.
More Constitutional obsolescence...
1
If cigarette ads were banned from TV and radio, let's take the same approach to political ads and FB. They are detrimental to the health of the democracy!
9
I deleted my Facebook app about a year ago and started reading e-books and taking an Ed.x course. I'm so much happier now. The immediate gratification of scrolling is empty and toxic. It's a drug, plain and simple.
I still go on a few times a week, mostly to read the Humans of New York posts, but use my browser instead of the app, which for me provides just enough deterrent.
5
I think the biggest problem is the lack of mental effort that a voter needs to put in to discern what the truth is, what is not being said and the myriad of ways political teams spin the truth.
That goes for Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
One thing has always held true in politics...politicians lie to win, all of them. Either outright or in more subtle ways.
Social media has just amplified the ability to spread the lies.
4
One thing not mentioned here is that Warren, too, has a style that would do well on FB as well as having the substance that appeals to those who demand more than kool-aid from their political representatives. No, it may not appeal to the standard trump fan on FB but as the polls show well, they are counting less and less.
Further more, I want to have a ban places on the release of important governmental announcements by the POTUS by twitter and FB. This is no way for a country to operate itself by counting on the least capable of determining the quality of information as official communication.
3
I think the biggest problem is the lack of mental effort that a voter needs to put in to discern what the truth is, what is not being said and the myriad of ways political teams spin the truth.
That goes for Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
One thing has always held true in politics...politicians lie to win, all of them. Either outright or in more subtle ways.
Social media has just amplified the ability to spread the lies.
2
I've never spent time on any social media site, so I can't comment about technical requirements or algorithms, but if a multi-billionaire CEO with a huge media dissemination platform comes out publicly as against one particular candidate for the POLICIES, I think we have a duty to ensure that platform at least grants access to and disseminates content from both sides of the contest. The FCC used to have something called the Fairness Doctrine, applying to broadcast companies and not print news, that gave opportunities for expanded public access and rebuttal to broadcaster opinions, but Reagan's FCC got rid of the ACT and Republicans have fought its reimposition ever since. We should consider the Internet, invented and funded mostly through federal application of resources, to be a PUBLIC GOOD, and that news and opinion providers have the same functional obligation as 'broadcasters', and subject to the principals of equal access. This is not to say we must regulate speech or editorializing, just the ability for any all all viewpoints to be heard equally, regardless of the political opinion of the 'licenseholder'. Support efforts to pass the Democrat sponsored Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act (H.R. 501) which has languished in Congressional committees since 2007.
8
After a reluctant start, I joined FB 4 years ago, and am surprised at many of the claims. Must be the people I connect with, but my experiences have been mostly positive. I'm obviously an innocent abroad. On the sites I visit they are mostly respectful sensible and enjoyable sharing our passions, art, music, even politics. I did stray onto one or two (ie: pro-Brexit) who had many unpleasant contributors but clearly missed some of the worst examples. In the UK, the TV industry I worked in many years ago had a pretty good regulatory regime; but with 100s of channels, now not so easy. It seems some regulation is needed, but who, and how.
2
It is a bit ironic that Elizabeth Warren, of all people, is concerned about Facebook allowing politicians to lie in their advertising. This is the same person who perpetuated lies about her Native American heritage and, more importantly, achieved national exposure with a "study" that falsely indicated that medical expenses were a major driver of U.S. bankruptcy cases. The study has since been thoroughly debunked.
10
There seem to be tragic irony in the notion that Trump elected Republicans stand silent as Trump spews misinformation via Twitter, verbal attacks, and blatant foreign policy corruption.
My fear is if we reduce or abridge free expression ( however mendacious) what awaits the country if the gaslighting becomes complete and we fall into the place where an authoritarian regime determines what is truth.
I am sure that the outraged will purport that prohibiting false advertising will prevent a democracy destroying outcome, yet two years ago it would have seemed utterly unfathomable for Trump’s behaviors, language, and utter disregard for those not beholden to him to even begin to exist, much yes enter the process of normalization.
Perhaps a more tenable solution would be to allow political ads with a bold disclaimer that they do not represent a fact-checked truth, may contain significant misinformation, and should not be considered complete nor accurate.
7
Facebook, cloaked in a seemingly benign veneer of families exchanging old photos and posting updates on family events etc. etc....is rapidly turning out to be, in fact, an Orwellian behemoth with massive powers to influence events. They and HE, have shown that they are not morally up to the task. Therefore, since they pose a clear threat to our democracy, they need to go. They need to be contained. They need to be broken up. They need to be stopped. This past week, in which Facebook has allowed massive amounts of disinformation to be spread across its platform shows that they cannot be trusted. Zuckerberg has lost all credibility.
21
This is from FB's 10-K, stating the business they're in:"Our mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together." Zuckerberg has repeatedly said he is not a publisher, and that's true. It really is just a souped up bulletin board, and to steal one from the Bard...the fault lies not in our stars.
3
FB was created by an anti-social geek whose first internet project was a site that allowed users to rate the "hotness" of female students by posting their pictures without their consent. And here we are, 16 years later. Not much has changed.
16
The only social media i use is FB. No twitter, no other. I have been reunited with great childhood friends virtually and in person thanks to the original version of FB. But if FB had competition, i would drop them in a second. I would even pay a little for an app to remain connected with my friends and things i like about FB. So when i hear Warren talking about breaking down these companies and banks, i hear...let’s bring old fashion capitalism in which competition is the real deal and not these monopolies that have taken over of our society.
22
It wouldn't be so very hard for Facebook to label distinctively text and images that are "political advertisement" or otherwise unmoderated and to carry that labeling forward through shares.
Maybe discount ad rates for rebuttals.
"The remedy for the abuse of free speech is more speech."
6
The World Would Be a Much Better Place Without Facebook
When any organization is so large that it can swing international policies and elections by avoiding all the safeguards long held essential, it is time to put that organization in healthy check for existence.
No organization should be a world king maker, none! Mr. Zuckerberg may be thinking that he is fighting Sen Warren for his share of a big pie, but I would caution him, Sen Warren may be the only thing that is keeping him and his company in existence. AUTHORITARIAN DICTATORS WILL NEVER TOLERATE A MEDIA THAT IT DOES NOT CONTROL. Count Sen Warren as a major factor that you can exist, Mr. Zuckerberg.
Facebook must be reined in now or democracy will fall, the present policies of FB must this nothing less than the reality that we are faced with. No organization, with reach to billions of eyes and minds, can just ignore a duty to make sure that it is not an organ of lies that are not being called in check. Democracy is more important than keeping Mr. Zuckerberg a billionaire.
Sen Warren may be America’s last great hope to have democracy, again, along with a responsible free press.
I do NOT make or take this statement lightly.
25
If Americans are going to let Facebook likes decide who they vote for then the experiment has failed. Big deal.
1
For centuries US courts have carved out a special space for political speech, writing, and now broadcast. Slander and libel laws, along with deliberate false advertising are usually limited, but rarely for political speech. However, extending such protections from the speaker, writer, or broadcaster to the people and companies who publish and spread falsehoods, slander, and libel is a Big stretch.
If my speech or yours deserved protection as political speech, why is a Zuckerberg broadcast of that content, done for FB profit, likewise protected? Perdue Pharma sent reps to doctors' offices to say opioids aren't addictive, but they couldn't say it on TV ads. Media platform companies are responsible 3rd parties or they are enablers of villainy. FB failed to protect the US voters in 2016, and later the Myanmar Rohingya. People died, Mark.
Publishers like FB should to be held to due diligence standards like employers, workers, and taxpayers. Publishing lies is toxic.
10
Facebook has claimed it is a tech platform, not a publisher or a media company. Thus it avoids the restrictions and regulations on such entities. However, if it is a tech platform, then it is more akin to AT&T, which was ultimately broken up. Either way, it will take real leadership at the legislative and judicial level to rein in Facebook.
The greater the number of Americans who vote, the greater the chance that Republicans, who are the minority, will NOT be elected.
12
Well, after Facebook enables Trump to win in 2020, and end up never leaving office until the day he dies from old age decades from now, lets remember who enabled him when we have our own "Carnation Revolution" freeing us from whatever horrific reactionary state he sets up. And unlike the Spanish and the Portuguese, or the Chileans, we should not let them off so easily.
1
In a way, this is "The Revenge of Freedom of Speech"--and that's the future we face, in the absence of any regulation of internet communication. And who in a country where Freedom of Speech is enshrined as one of the most holy of holies (along with ownership of assault rifles, and the right to prevent your neighbor's daughter from terminating a pregnancy) will object? It's going to be the ultimate Catch 22--we know that vicious behavior, lying, and incendiary Fake communications are rapidly eroding democracy, but that's under the umbrella of Freedom of Speech, so can't be stopped.
In a country with high literacy rates and intelligent use of information and communication tools, that's no problem. But the United States is strangely ILLiterate, and hence remarkably vulnerable to hearsay, rumor, and outright lies--much as, say, the citizens of The Philippines, Venezuela, or any of a hundred other countries whose voters are sitting ducks for the same.
9
Freedom of speech should be taken to mean freedom to express one’s opinion, but not freedom to lie. Especially not to lie for profit (should freedom of expression mean freedom to label dog and cat meat products as “pure beef”?). And especially especially not to lie for political gain or one’s own political career. Lying for the sake of one’s own political interests should be seen as treason.
1
Suppose it turns out that social media, Facebook in particular, continues to tear apart our social and political fabric. Are we so devoted to “free speech” that we just look away and hope our better selves will ultimately prevail in a more generous and thoughtful society. Or do we need take some serious measures to restrict the will transmission of unacceptably nasty and dangerous commentaries on social media. More than a few have suggested the key social media role behind the sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents across the nation. Years and decades ago people turned out in large numbers to support or reject various themes of social discourse. Now with social media the numbers ar far larger and the themes seem more aggressive if not more challenging to maintaining our social order. We may not really be able to tolerate complete freedom of expression via social media. Any more than we tolerate yelling “fire” in a movie theatre.
2
IMO Zuckerberg and Facebook is even a bigger menace than Rupert Murdock and Fox News. Why? As far as I know, Murdoch is happy with entertainment, media, bending public opinion to his rather obvious point of view. You know what he is preaching, unlike Facebook which so far looks like it would push any view if they could monetize it. Murdoch so far is not really interested in getting into your finances, where Zuckerberg is planning Facebook’s “Crypto” Currency which some sources expect to add up to $19 Billion in revenue and will not only have access to your personal information, but in some instances might have access to financial transaction records. If that gains traction, post something critical about him or his firm a few years after that gets off the ground, and think of the repercussions. Orwell's take on a dystopian future might have been too optimistic if the already problematic actions of some of these firms don't get European union type of regulation.
8
Facebook is certainly on the Republican side. And those Facebook users blindly believing the bubble fodder Facebook feeds them will probably vote GOP. But I think a lot more Americans understand the Facebook game now, and starting a war with Warren might just teach Zuckerberg that he is no more indestructible than Trump.
5
So the basic point after all the huffing and puffing is that some candidates and publicity campaigns are much better than others at manipulating people's opinions and feelings, whether with lies or not, than others. Therefore we must pass laws to prevent these clever people from exercising their cleverness which basically amounts to curtailing their freedom of speech. Until the favored candidates find a way to use Facebook or another medium as well.
3
@Sam
There is cleverness, and there are outright lies.
When Trump says "I love LGBTQ. Love them." that is a threat, mostly to LGBTQ.
When Trump promises, "I will never touch your benefits, trust me." , t hat's not being clever, that is destroying political discourse, warping election results, false and harmful advertising.
Its also making money for Facebook, which thrives on ugliness, falsehoods, making people angry.
For Zuck to squirm out from under any responsibility for what appears on his web site is insane. He encourages the division we decry in America today. He makes his fortune by coarsening the debate. He thrills to the prospect of internet-coordinated violence and hate.
The more, the richer.
If yelling "fire" is a crime, so is virtually everything Zuckerberg claims special dispensation to do because he thinks he can piggy back on press freedoms.
He is a late night huckster, the Ron Popeil of false information and inflammatory political speech.
He deserves no special breaks. He deserves to very tightly regulated. Our broken up.
Facebook is a bad actor, and everyone should delete their accounts but then will everyone also delete their Instagram, WhatsApp...it seems Elizabeth warren is correct.
3
Now, what? So we have the leader of a tech giant destroying democracy by influencing the 2020 vote via a social media platform? So this leader is deciding to use Facebook "to influence the election?" Is the leader of Facebook a Russian source for undermining our democracy? It certainly sounds like that is the intention. Here we go again, and this time it is a corporation involved in election meddling.
4
“Just as television favored a new brand of well-coiffed, charismatic and dynamic political figures, Facebook offers a disproportionate advantage to those most likely to stoke negative emotions.”
This is an astute observation. It’s worth pointing out that when tv gave an edge to the well-coiffed, charismatic and dynamic political figures (most notably jfk vs nixon, and thereafter) there were 3 major broadcast networks as well as numerous regional independent broadcasters vying for viewers (eyeballs) and advertisers. FB enjoys a monopoly that has never existed in the tv market. Zuckerberg may view Warren as an existential threat to Facebook, but there are millions of Americans who view Facebook as an existential threat to democracy.
6
With power comes responsibility. The role of government is to make sure that, when a center of economic power arises in the private sector, that it serves the public good. Regulation is essential, not an intrusion.
That is true for a company making cars. It is true for a company generating electricity. It is true for Facebook.
Squashing ads with outright lies is Facebook's responsibility. Otherwise, we will have to squash Facebook.
8
Let me ask each person reading this a simple easy question. Who might have the best interests of the American people in mind when they make a policy proposal: Mark Zuckerberg or Elizabeth Warren? It almost makes one laugh. Elizabeth Warren has served her country with distinction vs Mark Zuckerberg, who basically stole a business from other multi-millionaires. Case closed.
11
It doesn't make sense that the Facebook company, including Mr. Zuckerburg, are at the mercy of an algorithm, as is suggested in this article.
If a Warren presidency threatens the existence of Facebook, I would expect Facebook, through its powerful platform, to do its best to ensure Warren never makes it to the White House.
3
@Berkeley Native
You guys always skip the first step.
Nobody, especially Warren, would be talking about the break-up of Facebook if Facebook behaved in a forthright and responsible manner.
Corporations find themselves being regulated when they become a destructive force, when they actively do damage, when they refuse any considerations but their own.
When they make the leap from capitalism to anarchy.
Capitalism, to be sustainable, demands rigorous regulation. Facebook is an elegant statement why.
15
“a recent announcement by Facebook that it is exempting political figures from its policy forbidding spreading misinformation in advertisements “
Indeed. Can we attribute this to Zuckerberg’s amazing lack of vision or supposed naïveté? No, we can attribute it to simple malevolence and intent to drown democracy in a swamp.
12
What happened to breaking up monopolies? Facebook is crying to be broken up. We need Teddy Roosevelt back. Are we just going to let corporate moguls own and run or government?
13
Why would we stop now?
@SherlockM
Why do you suppose Zuck is so desperate to avoid a Warren Presidency?
Since both Facebook and Twitter are incapable or unwilling to police themselves effectively, there should be an involuntary power outage at both platforms for a few months leading up to the Presidential election.
8
@Jeff
I'm pretty sure PG&E is as desperate to escape regulation as FBook.
One obvious measure not yet taken but overdue is anti-trust measures. Bust up facebook into several independent entities, force it to adhere to effective privacy regulations, and force it to obey strict political advertising laws. And make the fines hurt, commensurate with the size of profits. How about 10% of annual profits fro serious, widespread violations?
Then go after google and the others too. No corporation, no matter how successful, cool, hip, or useful for many ought to be tolerated without regulation if it’s threatening healthy democracy.
11
Mr Zuckerberg's company was caught lying and fined almost $6 billion dollars this year by the federal government.
Fine was not levied for lying, so much as it was assessed for Mr Zuckerberg's company being caught.
The world was taught what Mr Zuckerberg is willing to allow when information about Cambridge Analytica was made public.
Whether Mr Zuckerberg and his companies will attack Ms Warren's campaign is moot.
Mr Zuckerberg clearly stated his goals to his employees
4
Why should we expect social media companies to erase all political lies yet accept that on TV we see/hear lies all the time? In congressional testimony several Trumpers have admitted to lying to journalists (and the public) and firmly rejected any moral obligation to tell the media the truth, yet they are still invited back to Fox/CNN/MSNBC to lie again and again. TV producers have more capacity to control the one signal they send out over the airwaves than social media companies, which are more akin to a million bulletin boards.
3
Facebook was created by a 22 year-old male college student eager to learn how to socialize, but unsure how to do it. Fast forward to 2019 and FB is a billion dollar monopoly that has successfully supplied individuals, companies, special interests and movements with the power - purposeful or not - to disrupt nations, to meddle in elections, and to control public sentiment.
It is a conundrum, isn't it? Perhaps the answer is to push for legislation to pan political ads entirely on FB in the United States.
11
We have the equivalent of the opioid crisis with these companies creating social harm by spreading false information and preying on people's fears and insecurities
Sooner or later they will pay for the havoc this type of addiction has wrecked in this country and the rest of the world
5
another problem with the internet: it leads to near monopolies. that is why zuckerberg has become such an important and powerful figure. unfortunately, concentrated power is almost always a bad thing.
most likely, zuckerberg has made and will make some bad decisions. but is there someone else you would trust more than him to balance the question of truth versus freedom on the world’s biggest social media platform? i wouldn’t trust you to do it. and i wouldn’t trust me either.
2
If anyone is unclear how dangerous Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook are to this country and our electoral process, they need only listen to the Terry Gross "Fresh Air" interview with Cambridge Analytica whistle blower Christopher Wylie from this week, or read his newly published book.
I guarantee it is the most comprehensive and important thing you will listen to or read about the 2016 election - and the coming 2020 election - and not just w/regard to Facebook.
Zuckerberg and Facebook have proven again and again that they have no interest in working within the ethical, moral or accepted parameters of government, business, technology, privacy, or even our monentary system...they now want to create their own form of currency.
Frankly, Zuckerberg and his minions believe "they know better." And they have repeatedly lied to the American public about the "safeguards" and mechanisms of Facebook.
When you look at how Facebook has impacted genuine interpersonal relationships, privacy, and our electoral process...the truth speaks for itself.
The absolute power that Facebook acquired in the technology and social media arenas...has corrupted absolutely.
However, shame on us for believing an inexperienced, immature young person should be at the helm of an organization with communication control over billions of people.
Time for all of us to wake up and recognize...technology is only a tool and social media merely entertainment.
23
I take exception to Facebook's decision to exempt "political figures from its policy forbidding spreading misinformation in advertisements". So I just deleted my FB account, which may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but the air seems fresher now.
23
Facebook is like all the other big US tech firms : all fiscally registered in Europe and not in the USA.
Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Yahoo, Google, Starbucks, Netflix, and others , are all in Ireland, in the EU, in order to cheat and pay no taxes while invading the European markets, stealing all advertising markets, stealing private data and reselling it ,infringing the European laws about monopoly and privacy.
The cash is repatriated to the USA via London banking and the US Offshore banks in the Caribbean.
11
The last time billionaire geek, Mark Zuckerberg, allowed his poorly supervised software platform to influence electoral politics, he created the internet equivalent of 9/11. As I recall from the actual period following the actual 2001 attack, a careful analysis of what went wrong that day, resulted in rapid sweeping changes in our air transportation system. Most of these changes were implemented in order to prevent a repeat of those attacks.
The possibility that we, as a democratic nation, would allow a repeat of the Facebook effect, is as irresponsible as if, after the 9/11 attacks, we went back to asking three silly questions of air travelers. The long term damage done by Facebook during the 2016 election likely exceeds the political consequences of the Nixon presidency by several orders of magnitude. It must not be permitted a repeat performance.
432
You can thank Facebook giving data to Cabridge Analytica for some of the problems we have today in how angry people are today when why Trump got a following when he was obviously such a lousy candidate.
Just listen to the recording of Cambridge Analytica's Christopher Wylie on NPR. C.A. and Wylie used Facebook data to target U.S. citizens prone to conspiracy theories and influence folks who were vulnerable to adopt Trump as their candidate. While C.A. is no longer in existence, the people and methods are and they are working for Russia. If you have not heard the podcast. I suggest you spend 20 minutes listening:
https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/2019/10/08/768222377/fresh-air-for-oct-8-2019-cambridge-analytica-whistleblower-christopher-wylie
You know that Russia is going to do this again in 2020 if they are not already doing it today. Delete Facebook.
20
comrade zuckerberg participated in 2016 - why not 2020.
11
Spread the word: Getting your news from Facebook is like having sex with a porn star, without protection. It might be well packaged, but really, you don’t know all the places it’s been. Plus, the fact that your friends also do it should provide no comfort whatsoever.
14
Let Trump do or say what he wants on Facebook. It’s not going to change anybody’s mind.
3
Boycott Facebook. Period. They are evil.
17
It has been been quite obvious for a number of years that this type of situation would develop. Perhaps if enough Democrats and progressives and anti-trust folks leave Facebook it can, without compunction, purchase Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars, TASS, and the Pravda paper, etc, and then Zuckerburg can manipulate future elections to get a proper puppet installed in the White House.
Facebook has one duty, and one duty only, to make money - just like all Trusts before it. Its only moral foundation is found in the golden rule - “He who has the gold rules.”
4
Zuckerberg can not nuke her. Warren is already radioactive against FB.
3
Good one!
Install FB Purity, nuke all FB ads and promo page posts, neuter all FB influence over choices people make.
3
Can FaceBook the entity ( or Zuckerberg specifically ) scupper Warren's attempts to gain the DNC nomination ?
Sorry Zuck and Company lovers ... no they cannot . Neither being god , dictator or supreme ruler of the earth
But who can ... are the entertainment addled mindless minions that despite the multitude of revelations about FaceBook from everyone from Assange to recent events still depend almost solely on FaceBook ( and Twitter ) for their news ... the majority of which is either unverified or completely fake .
They can ... because ... like the mindless minions most of them have volitionally allowed themselves to become ... they'll latch on to every bit of fake news . propaganda and lies FB etc can feed them ... because .... they're so desperate to be entertained
So once again ... don't place the blame on the ' dealer ' . Place it firmly upon the shoulders of the addicts themselves .
Finally ... as a closing note ... please get a clue all ye FaceBook users . Zuckerberg's interests are solely his own and the company's financial gain . NOT the truth nor the well being of the country or the individuals such as yourself that created his fortune
Lastly .... just remember ... in the digital domain ... you are NOT the customer ... you are a mere commodity to be bought , sold , traded and disposed of at the digital oligarchs whims and fancy
8
Zuckerberg and his company are a cancer on society.
15
Zuckerberg's and Sandberg's greed is almost as disgusting as Trump's.
16
Warren indeed openly advocates breaking up big tech and I agree with her yet I hope she isn't the nominee as I don't think she can beat the idiot in the White House. Nevertheless I would vote for her or a cadaver over the current occupant.
Zuck on the other hand is merely a pathetic admitted digital thief and panders to any one that will further his agenda.
Sound familiar?
5
Mark Zuckerberg needs to grow up.
3
Sociopath vs Sociocrat.
2
One man's damned lie is another's blessèd truth.
I know a number of things to be true, which ideas are considered unpublishable by our intellectual elite. I daresay this is not a unique situation.
I suspect very strongly that if I were to express them on Facebook, they would be suppressed as misinformation.
Each such suppression is a lost step in the process of the confrontation of ideas, the object of which is to discover the truth, the deep down truth.
The conventional truth wins. The search for real truth loses.
It starts as Nanny. It ends as Big Sibling.
2
@alyosha
I have to say, whenever I hear someone say they, and they alone, know the real truth, I have to wonder whether they've been getting signals from outer space....
2
Mark Zuckerberg has lost his soul.
7
Well, Well, Well - already making excuses....
3
I guess there is only one way out of this, to fight fire with fire during the 2020 elections. Can the DNC hire headline writers from AMI to write supermarket headlines about Donald Trump's children? Can they put in audio of babies crying along with the pictures of children in detention camps? Can there be a Republican equivalent of Pizzagate? Can the DNC hire Duarte's campaign manager? There may be a time for moderation, but, as the writer said, this is information warfare.
2
Very possibly. Depends on what Netanyahu really wants. That’s the lynchpin.....
1
Zuckerberg and trump have a lot in common - greed, ego and the morals of a hyena.
7
This problem is not limited to Facebook:
“The ad has also appeared on YouTube and Twitter. A spokesman for Twitter said on Tuesday that the ad complied with its policies. A YouTube official likewise said the ad complied with its policies.“
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/technology/facebook-trump-biden-ad.html
6
Are we living in Communist China now? The government controls the media?
Nice one, Democrats & Wurzel.
3
After re-electing Trump, I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg will offer one and all a heartfelt apology. He's had loads of practice:
https://www.wired.com/story/why-zuckerberg-15-year-apology-tour-hasnt-fixed-facebook/
7
NO. FB is garbage and everyone can see it. Or they need to. It’s been obvious for years.
12
Maybe it's time to 'nuke' FB! Clear and present danger to our 'democracy'. Zuckerberg and team are as lethal and powerful as Mafia-Don. NOT OK!
8
two million Californians with no electricity due to a combination of corporate incompetence and vindictiveness verging on criminality and Facebook wielding corporate power every bit as forcefully as a foreign power in deciding the outcome of our Presidential election.
dystopia is no long fiction, it is our daily reality.
8
Facebook is a cancer that promotes outrageous and poisonous candidates like Trump over candidates who promote truth, decency and responsibility like most of the Democrats running.
Zuckerberg doesn't care about anything but money. He's made that clear in his approach to every problem Facebook has faced. For Zuckerberg, every question that arises about Facebook must be dealt with by getting issues out of the way of Facebook's growth - no matter the negative consequences for our society.
There should be new laws and regulations for social media - which is powerful and influential in outsize ways - both good and bad.
Zuckerberg feels no obligation to use his power or money for the good of the country or our democracy or our culture.
Because of Zuckerberg's obstinance when it comes to responsibility for the ways Facebook is damaging our democracy, I support breaking up Facebook.
And Mark Zuckerberg should be replaced. He's an ethical failure for his company.
9
Shut down social media. There is no controlling it. It is a malign influence on society. Trust me, life was better before we had it.
But that’s logic.
The hard truth is that people value amusement more than they value democracy and their country. They are giggling while Rome burns.
7
Pull the plug on Facebook and others like it for a period of three months prior to the 2020 election. Probem solved.
6
Facebook is a security vulnerability that the US and the Western world will need to legislatively address.
A propaganda conduit. Actually, more analogous to a propaganda gutter.
5
Everything I know about Facebook makes me avoid it like the plague.
11
I'm a big fan of Facebook. Always have been, always will be. If I drove a race car, I'd have a big, fat Facebook logo on my hood. That's just who I am. I can't change that. Thank you, Mark Zuckerburg. For everything. Truly. You're the best.
2
Zuckerberg, Sandberg, Katie Harbath, all of Facebook are disgusting. Keep in mind that the victims/targets here aren't just powerful politicians.
Remember El Paso and the "invasion" ads.
Facebook ads are NOT just like other misleading political TV ads. They are tailored to your prejudices. Democracy doesn't thrive when you're only fed the information you want to hear. It's not that complicated.
9
Zuck will stay out of it. His business is pay to play, and he will be paid a lot as he was in 2016, for culture building among angry alt-right righteous angry disaffected angry isoated angry people, who even today, think Trump has a mandate. At 2.8 billion monthly users, old Zuck doesn't have to think about little old USA so hard. $ will take care of money without him lifting a finger.
4
The Times does the same thing.
they have always slanted away from Bernie.
8
Clearly FB muddies the water to favor the sharks. We are swamped daily with bad news. This bad news we can do something about:
https://www.wikihow.com/Permanently-Delete-a-Facebook-Account
The NYT should consider 1) Headlining the Essence (as in here, FACEBOOK ALLOWS POLITICIANS TO LIE) and 2) cut the verbose latinate vocabulary that hides and soothes (not obfuscates and ameliorates).
1
@Bliss I permanently deleted my Facebook and Instagram accounts last year. Thousands of photos, loads of followers, all gone in an instant.
No more feeling obliged to like things. No more missing life because I am too busy taking photos of it to post as it flies by.
I have never felt so free.
11
2 things:
You CAN'T "nuke" a decent advocate for the people. You just can't. Warren is as decent a person as can be. Not "nukeable".
Delete your account. If you still have one YOU are responsible for Facebook as much as anyone else. TAKE AWAY THEIR POWER. Stop Being Their VICTIM. DELETE your ACCOUNT. NOW. TODAY.
13
Facebook? Warren? Well, she's a good candidate, so are others.
The question is, why did the conventional media nuke Sanders' campaign with silence the last time? His was a real story.
Even more disturbing--why are they doing it again?
Looking at you too, NYT.
9
A good reason to vote for her - to fight the cancer that is Facebook.
6
Simple solution. Shut down Facebook permanently.
6
I'm less worried about Facebook doing it that Warren doing it to herself. This latest round of lies she has been spewing about being fired for being pregnant should do the job itself. Not to mention the who native thing she tried to pull, even using this lie for personal gains. If this was a white male Republican who lied like this the Progressives would be trying to nail them to the wall.
1
Read facebook if it entertains you.
Remember to Vote Blue in 2020.
3
By now it is quite obvious that the Zuckerberg-Trump-Sandberg axis of e... is treating democracy the same way as some of the world's worst tyrants.
If anyone had doubt about Sandberg (once worked for the Clinton admin..., what a joke) & Zuckerberg's political favorite, this is now quite clear.
Greed has no limits and they will all do what it takes to feed their big appetite.
1
As Trump is but the vomit spewed up by a failed democracy, the lawless, amoral, democracy destroying Facebook is but the logical, predictable endpoint of America's unswerving obeisance to the sanctity of unfettered capitalism.
Milton Friedman, Eugene Fama, Richard Epstein and the rest of the gang at the Chicago School, please take a bow!
Happy now?
3
I can only quote Mark Twain (what a rich lode he could derive from this administration!) with what the "King" (now there's a scary co-incidence!) says:
“Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And hain't that a big enough majority in any town?”
2
Facebook is a platform for fake news. More appropriate name is Facebook. It is worst than Fox News.
7
Let every Independent, Democrat, and closet Republican Trump hater cancel their Facebook account.
3
Re: Could Facebook Actually Nuke Elizabeth Warren’s Campaign?
This will present an interesting study case on how far donor influence reaches
To get elected, in the US, you need campaign money, millions of dollars, and in return you are expected to take care of the interest of the donors, lest you want to find yourself in the next election sans money - and facing a more pliable candidate now lavishly supported by your previous donor(s)
Top campaign donor, Nancy Pelosi
Campaign Committee Fundraising, Top contributor
2019-2020 election cycle (ongoing)
Facebook
Campaign Committee Fundraising, Top contributor
2017 - 2018 election cycle
Facebook
Campaign Committee Fundraising, Top contributor
2015 - 2016 election cycle
Facebook
Ms. Warren wants to dismantle facebook, Ms. Pelosi top campaign contributor
So the answer, is yes, but it would require Ms Pelosi to bite the hand that feeds and fed her, and more generally the DNC to get along in irritating Silicon Valley, that is one of the two most important sources for campaign money for the Democratic Party. The other is Wall Street
This will, ladies and gentlemen, be a fight between the progressive and Wall Street/Silicon Valley financed arm of the Democratic Party
Data
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary/nancy-pelosi?cid=N00007360&cycle=2016&type=I
Never had a Facebook account
Never will
5
Could it?
One could only hope so
2
I have stated this. Many time deviously, Facebook is a threat to the truth! Personally, I am not nor have I ever been on it; and happy to say that! Facebook has always been about the money and the money only and all of their statements to the contrary are nothing more than blowing smoke. They have lied numerous times to the public about what they do with all that information that they collect about you that none of know anything about.
Hey Zuckerberg!, why not do the right thing and standup for what is best for the country and the upcoming election. Do us all a favor.
3
It's money before God and Country at Facebook. What do you think?
3
Zuckerberg +Tweet-dom+ Trump+ Russian Trolls+ Chinese Trolls= Lots of Red Meat for the emotionally driven unreflective mobs that make up e pluribus unum.
Plato predicted this demise in "The Republic" as did Machiavelli.... now we have the perfect conditions for unfettered absolutist notion of "free speech" to manifest all its dysfunctions.
3
Democracy is doomed.
2
Best news of the day, thank you
In The World According to Facebook, Kim Kardashian would make the ideal presidential candidate.
Outlaw Facebook! (and I live in it's hometown)
3
Zuck and Facebook are a blight upon the world. They should be shut down, broken up, whatever..
6
I’m not a Luddite, but I’ve never been on fakebook. I maintain contact with friends and family; I manage to tract down lost contacts; I shop and order food online - all without fakebook. Maybe if fakebook users disgusted with fakebook’s de facto support of lies, propaganda and foreign interference in American elections just quietly withdrew from this stupidity, you all could send an important message about your values. You could change the future.
7
Can someone please fund a massive facebook Ad campaign that teaches people how to process information. Can they create ads that teach people how to get their news from multiple, reputable sources, recognize bias and learn some basic logic for deconstructing emotional arguments? Please!
219
@AB This is not done in as Ad campaign. This cannot teach people how to think. It is done through education and is a lengthy process. Most people never get it.
37
@Joshua Schwartz
I agree that education is the right word, but it doesn't have to be that lengthy. I've heard reports of school children (not in America, alas) learning how to spot bias in reporting, which helps them learn skepticism and with luck become smarter consumers of news and targeted ad campaigns.
Where there's a will . . .
33
@AB
Oddly, this is something which gets taught to ESOL students.
Why we don't teach it to our kids, who knows!
I know I tried to teach it to MY children.
5
Perhaps social media should be outlawed. Because such a law would be indifferent to content, it would be permitted by the First Amendment.
Perhaps the internet itself should be closed.
2
If we had public financing for elections and limited how candidates could spend the money (no ads, which convey nothing meaningful or honest about a politician) we could eliminate the scourge of disinformation.
But that would require a democracy, which we do not have. In any case,the powers that be like things the way they are now. Democracy just isn't that good for capitalism.
2
@Eric but man Capitalism sure is good for Democracy! Or at least compared to the other isms
Zuck was/is a socially awkward man child when he invented the platform. Unable to develop actual relationships with actual humans in the analogue world, he created a digital version of what he thought was actual human connection. Sadly, he was not alone in his vision. There are A LOT of people who spend their days scrolling through FB.
Now, all he cares about is money and the status it brings to him. He is well aware without that money, he goes back to being a socially awkward weird guy. So......if selling out the democracy is the price for him not losing his status, well then, so be it.
4
I predict Elizabeth Warren is going to win and FB is going to help her. She’s a a fighter, uniter, truth teller, problem solver, mother, respected professor and disciplined leader with good ideas. People gonna talk. Thanks for the platform FB!
3
Eventually it will not be good for Zuckerberg and Facebook if their brands become known as liars and purveyors of misinformation. I believe that most people will eventually see through these scams.
3
Those who will vote for Warren, will hardly be swayed by social media of any kind. It’s time we take back our own judgement instead of renting it out. She is the front runner and if she is the nominee, has my vote. I will just say to her and her advisors. If you put your foot in your mouth, simply acknowledge it. Contrary to what politicians think, they actually look fantastic as bumbling ordinary folks. Makes you one of us :-)).
4
I have stopped using Facebook and fervently wish it would go away.
8
I never believe any campaign promise, never.
The backlash is going to hurt FB a lot worse than being decent corporate citizens.
Without Facebook spreading fake videos about Hillary’s health and Pizzagate, Trump wouldn’t have won in 2016. Without Trump winning, we would have had a decent shot at controlling climate change. The hurricanes, fires, and drownings to come will be to a large part Zuckerberg’s fault.
People turn their back on corrupt organizations all the time. Facebook is a fad. Buh bye!
4
Warren deserves to attacked by social media, including the Facebook/Instagram behemoth that has vast quantities of data on every individual that has ever used either program to sell to campaigns - yes, including to Senator Warren's. The rank hypocrisy for her to be saying anything! Funny her supporters would whine about a service used to target voters for her campaign. Her comments about Biden's son while he was being attacked based on lies on Facebook were repulsive. She needs to apologize immediately for that. She needs to find some integrity, stop being deceptive, and smarmy. Then, the Native American thing. Then, having an all female squad of metoo investigators interrogate her national campaign director then fire him for inappropriate behavior? Did she pay Rich McDaniel off with donations so he wouldn't start talking to the press? "I want us to have a campaign that lives our values and that lifts up inclusivity," said Warren. What does that mean? The GOP will use this against her. And her ongoing evasiveness about her Medicare for All policy enrages me. Will it result in my son's paycheck deductions increasing, something that would have left me hungry at 25. Answer the question! And what is inappropriate behavior to Warren? Nothing if it advances her ambitions. Tired of winning like that already. Why doesn't she make honesty one of her policies for everything? Zuckerberg would be doing us a favor if he could actually take her out. He can't. That's what brains are for.
2
Excellent analysis.
1
Do you really believe that Facebook was why Hillary Clinton lost? Hillary Clinton was the reason she lost.
She was a liar and had sold out to multiple foreign governments for personal gain (e.g., Saudi Arabia).
Elizabeth Warren has some flaws, but not nearly the degree of Hillary Clinton.
2
Perhaps all that’s old is new again. If there wasn’t demand in the American public for tabloids, they wouldn’t exist. The adage “smut sells” was accurate 100 years ago and just as accurate today. So Facebook is nothing more than a tabloid with self-publishing authors. It’s always been a good business plan. Mark should own it and take pride in garbage his platform publishes and enables. And he should quit making false claims about how he has changed the world.
2
Zuckerburg is as greedy as his platform is dangerous yet I’m unable to convince friends and family to cut the cord. Where else can they see adorable photos of their children/grandchildren/friends’ pets etcetera ad naseum? I went off Facebook in 2015 and have been beating the drum since then. I have no audience, unlike MZ.
1
Like any broad changes to how things work the knee-jerk reaction is to try to stop it. The solution is to adapt because you cannot the clock back.
Please take this very, very seriously. Just because you do not use Facebook, and none of your friends use Facebook, doesn't mean that Facebook will not influence millions of people during the campaign. The Republicans have this whole mass communication thing down to a science, from hate radio, to Facebook, to the dark web, social media, to newspaper comment columns, to television ads, to mass mailings. And of course, Fox TV. Once Democrats have a nominee, they will throw EVERYTHING at him/her, and they don't play fair.
7
Elizabeth Warren is a disastrous candidate and Mark Zuckerberg is brace enough to take a stand against her. She is anti-capitalist and her proposals will destroy this country.
3
@AB
Mark Zuckerberg is not a brave warrior taking a stand. He is a money and power-grubbing capitalist who cares nothing for you or anyone else. I bet he'd take your last dime if he could get his hands on it.
Warren's so-called anti-capitalism is really a very mild form of social democracy, as practised in wonderful countries around the world, where people have necessary things like health care for all.
After Cambridge Analytica, I slashed my use of FB by a lot. This year, I deleted my account entirely. Guess what? I'm fine. You will be too. Dump Facebook and every form of surveillance capitalism that you can.
3
@A
I did, too. Also, when websites ask you about cookies, choose “manage” and accept only the strictly necessary cookies. You can shut off the ones that track you.
Algorithms are the crux of the problem. Don’t feed them.
Boycott both Facebook and Twitter.
Let's have a clean election, with all habitual liars silenced. If possible, let's shorten election campaigns; six months should be plenty.
3
My "parole date" from Facebook is 7-15-2010. I was on Facebook for 18 months and realized-long before the Cambridge Analytic nonsense and the 2016 Election-that Facebook could be weoponized and is, in fact, an invasion of privacy waiting to happpen!
3
Facebook is begging to be regulated.
6
Wow. In their obvious zeal to get Warren elected president the author(s) want to disregard the 1st Amendment. Politicians, including Warren lie and spin the truth all the time. Each posting would have to be judged on a rating scale of truth.
This is one of the silliest arguments yet. Is the author that afraid Trump will win? Must be running scared. . .
1
Not actually, because in actuality he doesn’t have nukes. But metaphorically? Yes
@JL22
I'm an old fogey whose only reason for owning a cell phone is to use it as a phone, and I can't for the life of me understand why people would want to bare themselves on Facebook. Never used it, never will.
20:50 EDT, 10/10
4
Facebook was an experiment from the start and now we know the results — it is a failure. Who is really better off from using Facebook? It allowed Russia to interfere in our elections, promoted the hate candidacy of Trump, and now Facebook is ready to do it all again. It’s pretty amazing — seriously weakening American democracy is their major “accomplishment” as a platform. Oh yea, and then they sold/gave away our data and tracked us all over the web. And enabled genocide in Myanmar. The most shocking part is that all of this is acceptable to the people running Facebook.
4
@E Facebook a raging success. And American democracy doesn't exist, never has. Northwestern University (right there in your backyard) determined that America was governed by an oligarchy years ago.
Take it easy on Zuck. He's a genius.
Facebook is a danger to society. It was conceived to track Zuckerberg’s then girlfriend and the tracking mechanism is its central feature to make money. From ISIS to white suprematism - how can any intelligent being be engaged. An amazing time when the Attorney General is sounding out the owner of Fox News for Trump. What about the owners of Twitter and Facebook? Have they received a call? No unsocial media for me!
4
Facebook is an existential threat to any decent society.
6
Delete Facebook. It’s a waste of time anyway.
7
As much as I support Millennial Silicon Valley successes and the way they've revolutionized how society operates in so many positive and forward-thinking ways, it's always a serious reality check when you realize that it has also created someone right out of Central Casting for the role of the next James Bond villain.
Zuckerberg (and Jack from Twitter much less) are just grown-up boys who created toys that ended up being used as weapons.
When it comes down to making a buck and growing more powerful versus protecting society and democracies around the world, they'll choose the money and power.
5
Zuckerberg and others like him are, to use a phrase Trump often makes use of, enemies of the people. Zuckerberg has more money than he probably knows what to do wit and his need for even more money knows no bounds or ethics. He is in many respects a deadbeat parasite
2
Social media is a double edge sword.
There's a lot of opprobrium heaped on it by the traditional press, but that's because they see it for the existential threat it is.
I see it as a useful check on the plainly biased reporting from the journalist class.
14
@abdul74 An odd recommendation: the blatantly biased , manipulated, stream of click-bait on social media as an antidote to the slight liberal bias of the non-Murdoch/Sinclair "journalist class". It's more or less equivalent to considering climate change deniers as a "useful check" on the scientific class.
55
@abdul74 But the newspapers are vetted by intelligent editors whereas Facebook is “edited” by the emotional responses of algorithms and people who often can’t think logically and wouldn’t know a Presidential liar no matter how often he spits and tells them it’s raining.
52
I’m not so sure about that. Facebook is not journalism. It is a profit-making enterprise that requires engagement. And the best way to get engagement is to exaggerate or flat-out lie. Journalism requires research and sources. Facebook requires a ginned-up audience ready to accept anything that nods at their warped view of the world.
If Facebook is so great, why is it the bastion of dictators, fascists and liars?
46
Facebook's only assets are intellectual property of various sorts: patents, trademarks, and copyrights. These are government granted -- I repeat, government granted -- monopolies. Exactly how this is "free" speech is beyond me.
1
The article states, “Facebook’s willingness to let politicians lie sets a worrying precedent. ” But wouldn’t it be a still more worrying precedent if Facebook thought itself capable of deciding for us which statements by politicians are true?
Incendiary statements are part of politics and always have been. There is only one good way to decide what’s true in political questions, and that is open debate. Letting a tech company filter the arguments is a terrible idea for us, not to mention a perpetual tar-pit for the company.
4
@James Jones There is a standard for deciding what is reasonable, James. The FTC is responsible for policing "truth in advertising" and it recognizes a difference between "puffery" (e.g., "Verizon has the best internet speeds" or mildly incendiary political statements) versus factual misinformation, such as Verizon advertising 1GB speeds when you actually only get 1/10th of that speed or outright lies by a political opponent. Facebook is smart enough to police flat out misstatements.
2
@Phillip J. But the FTC works for us, and is ultimately accountable to voters! Facebook works for Zuckerberg, who is accountable to no one, and all the decisions would be made in the dark.
1
There is an experiment to test Zuckerberg's defense of allowing torrents of blatantly false negative ads on Facebook. Run a torrent of false political ads about Mark Zuckerberg. We'll see how he and his army of algorithms react.
9
@Mike T
Oh, yeah!
Democrats need to go on the offensive and label Facebook as partisan and hostile. Facebook have a clear business reason to meddle and subvert rigorous and honest election debate, because they want to elect the party that won’t regulate them and won’t hold them accountable for antitrust violations. This time around, it’s not about complacency and disinterest and lying about the interference. This time around Facebook will likely actively encourage Republican propaganda.
13
When lies are posted in Facebook, Facebook is not just a passive post board. It is an active participant and Facebook should be held responsibility for harm done to others. Zuckerberg and other leaches cannot fatten themselves at the expense of others.
7
Basically since Zuckerberg stole the idea for Facebook from his classmates there is no real reason that it has to be open 7 days a week after she is elected. Let’s close it two days a week and all other businesses owned by Zuckerberg for he maybe a threat to our democracy. Since he has to much power on the internet simply use eminent domain for internet monopolies and oligopolies. All of them can simply be allowed to open only five days a week. If their behavior continues then they go down to three days a week. He may want to steal our elections in the future that may lead to the end of our democracy. Trump has proven to be a disaster for democracy and Facebook was not watching how the Russians and Trump curved the election. Simply shut them down one month prior to the next Presidential election. That is every business they own. Not just Facebook . We succeeded before Facebook and we can succeed if it is closed down. Democracy must survive.
7
@Ralph Petrillo
Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant!
1
you do realize that the internet doesn't exist just in the United States, right?
I've said it before, Facebook's platform is akin to giving the person who yells "Fire!" in a crowded theater a giant megaphone enabling the act everywhere, simultaneously.
Both are wrong.
Zuckerberg uses Freedom of Speech as his ultimate catch-all protection. Regulation will be the only recourse for defusing his standard defense mechanism.
11
When a person stands up IN PUBLIC and voices a point of view we can see who is talking, take into account our KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THAT PERSON, and ASSESS THE RELIABILITY of what the speaker is saying. When we read things on social media we DON'T REALLY KNOW THE SOURCE of the information and whether or not a reasonable person should believe it. Social media should not be involved with news and politics.
13
@Semi-retired
Hear, hear.
3
Positive emotions are stronger than negative emotions. Any emotion is stronger than no emotion, the least effective communication strategy you could use in politics and in life. If it were launched for the first time this year, “Hope” would trounce every other campaign in Facebook and elsewhere.
I've deleted my Facebook account a couple of years ago and haven't looked back. I can't even imagine wanting to be on that horrid site during the 2020 election season.
9
@Blackcat66 your account is not really deleted=they just fool you into thinking that.Go back now and enter your sign in and it pops right back up.It did for me
1
@jervissr . No it's really deleted I tried once when trying to log on somewhere that uses Facebook account logins not thinking one day.
The creepy thing that made me go from not using Facebook that much to deleting my account was when I got notifications one day informing me that I had just checked into a restaurant about 45 minutes away that I had never heard of. I was home at the time and couldn't figure why Facebook was informing the world I was at some restaurant. So creepy.
Actually, that algorithm works well for extremists on both sides of the political spectrum, forcing out centrists who could get elected, and whom polls show to be what most people in this country want.
I, for one, am seriously considering closing my facebook account. I'd be perfectly happy to get birthday wishes from only the people who actually have my cellphone number.
8
@Sharon
Most everyone know has already done that.
2
This column reminds us yet again that Facebook requires wise leadership that understands the power and consequential responsibilities of its dominant platforms. Facebook's Board and investors should be searching for an 'adult' as Chairman to help guide Zuckerberg.
1
I stopped using Facebook in 2014. Too many random threads, too few thoughtful exchanges. Now I email, talk on the phone, meet up with friends at cafes, their homes, their friends’ homes, my home, on hikes, at the park, at our kids’ games, school events, oh yeah and I write letters, and receive them in return. When I put down the screen, I remembered there’s a world out there full of generous, interesting, intelligent, thoughtful and kind people.
My ask. Please put down the device for a moment. The only people who are benefiting are the tech plutocracy, and they don’t really care about you. Their only concern is whether they have more than the person at the neighboring estate.
5
Christopher Wylie who worked for Cambridge Analytica was on NPR recently. He explained how he and others used the access to personal information Facebook provided, to sow nationwide dissent during the run-up to the 2016 election. Zuckerberg's later appearances before Congress were striking in that he refused to acknowledge how FB was used to influence the election. Facebook is too powerful.
9
facebook would be much better if it simply banned all forms of political advertising and political commentary.
that's a mere consumer perspective. advertisers and political campaigns are the "facebook members" who want the opportunity to distort and shift public opinion in order to motivate target behavior (voting, purchasing, borrowing, etc.).
facebook is just announcing that it is open for business to a wider clientele that is free to vend disinformation and lies.
that tells you everything you need to know about the facebook mission, corporate values and strategic thinking.
this story is part of the larger atmosphere of fear that is proving highly beneficial to politicians. there was a time when western civilization struggled with religious fears of sin and damnation; in our secular political religions these are replaced by fears of conspiracy, coercion, deception and abuses of power.
these fears are tools of manipulation. i hardly agree that the problems with facebook arise because of "a structural flaw in its original architecture" -- you mean "TheFacebook" perhaps? the structural flaw is in human nature and the gossip, rumor, hearsay, slander, misinformation and hysteria that suppurates with the infection of fear.
the problem isn't "a bottomless pit of attention." it's what spending daily hours in that pit does to your sanity, sobriety, sense of reality, and sense of self.
1
Facebook and other social media should be regulated like broadcast media. That’s exactly what they’ve become for many Americans.
6
I am a bit less into the egalitarian 'empowerment' that the internet provides than I thought I would be at this point. Truth is, some people shouldn't be given a microphone because they are simply unqualified, uninformed, or unproductive. There needs to be some kind of merit based, rather than power-based, sorting mechanism of ideas. Should broad councils of academics be employed to help sort things out?
7
There is clearly a serious problem when one single person, Mark Zuckerberg, can derail one political campaign while favoring another.
120
There is only one way to stop Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.: make them responsible for the content they publish. Pass legislation allowing those who are harmed by published falsehoods to sue for damages. Only then will social media police their content. Our society and democracy will be better off, also.
687
@Alberto
Yes, the rule of "if you forward it, you own it" would do a lot of positive things for Internet behavior.
45
Is a copper telephone wire or the companies that maintain the wire responsible for the spoken words it transmits?
15
@Alberto Warren is her own worst enemy. Her desire to break up Facebook as well as other tech companies is a gigantic blunder. She has made an enemy of an industry that would have supported her. There's NO widespread call from the American public to do this! Warren can't abide by anything or anyone who has the power or influence to challenge absolute governmental authority. Warren is autocratic with her call for breaking up tech corporations; there's a Government process for that, it's NOT a Presidential prerogative. Warren needs to resolve other issues that are more important than tech giants. If she wants to go after companies that have a huge impact on all Americans, then go after the health insurance & drug companies. We all have a choice as to whether we use Facebook, Google or Amazon, but few of us have a choice about what we use or what happens to us when we get ill. Facebook, like Amazon and Google, have the financial muscle to credibly oppose the government in a protracted legal fight. It's a lose-lose situation. This column & Warren's actions are a good example of why progressives will never gain any traction in this country. Leftist zealots are determined to drive the Democratic party off the cliff. It's going to take more than lesson & they're going to get more than one lesson. This debacle will facilitate Trump winning a 2nd term. The excessive amount of attention to this can backfire, with Trump being reelected & it not being the result of Russian interference.
16
There is a difference between speech that includes lies and an orchestrated disinformation campaign. Disinformation is a weapon of war. It is used by militaries all over the world. It is the verbal equivalent of an assault weapon.
Facebook giving Trump the green light to use this weapon of war on the American people and anyone else who uses Facebook's publishing house is against all democratic values. Claiming disinformation and propaganda are protected by the 1st amendment free speech clause is the equivalent of saying the 2nd amendment gives people the right to shoot other people.
794
@DB
A 20% excise tax on the GROSS (not net) incomes of the very largest corporations would go a long way to encouraging them to split up into hundreds of (still huge) businesses that wouldn't be able to buy our politics.
When you can buy stuff at your local store for less than the big box store, you'll know it's working.
58
@DB
The real crime here is the ability of Facebook to claim they have no responsibility for the content of their sites. They have billions of dollars. They have a responsibility to spend some preventing crime.
When Adam Smith wrote about the Invisible Hand, he was not talking about the ability to feed people misinformation to get them to do stupid things.
You don't need socialism to tell you capitalism has run amok. If you compare what the titans of finance are doing to how classical economists described markets, you find out that they are doing everything the classical economists warned against, and getting the same results that the classical economists predicted we would get.
Neo-Classical Economics and its cousin Neo Liberalism are scams. Supply Side Economics has never ever ever worked. It has never made more than a short bubble in the economy and never grew revenue. (The Trump base has been taught to repeat self-contradictory lies like all debt is bad so lets cut taxes.)
Neo-Classical Economics doesn't care about reality.
On the advice of "conservatives" I read a bunch of Hayek, one of the Austrian School economists. He spends half of his time claiming that economics is a fake science that can't predict anything, and the other half claiming that he is an economist, and predicting that if government did nothing the economy would be better off.
Supply Side voodoo just an excuse to get democracy out of the way of their fraud.
We have a Republic, if We can keep it.
72
@McGloin
The people who read only "invisible hand" in Adam Smith often ignore that he also wrote that those who live by profit often deceive the public and noted that there were laws to prevent workers from organizing to raise wages but no laws to prevent the masters from organizing to keep wages low.
55
Facebook news is like the National Enquirer or that weird ‘Science’ rag that went out of business. Today it would have said that Donald Trump is a secret space alien.
Let’s not forget the link between Facebook and child porn.
8
Facebook will torpedo Warren because she plans to raise Zuckerber’s taxes and break up his monoploy.
9
FB is evil
17
This is what happens when you apply Capitalism to politics. What Zuckerberg and Facebook are essentially saying is “let the market decide” what works and what doesn’t. If Facebook encourages the election of incompetent, corrupt, self dealing Presidents, then eventually the market will notice the resulting governance outcomes and adjust to elect different Presidents. That could happen. But it could also take a while and destroy a lot of lives in the process.
Ultimately its up to us as citizens to decide who we are, whether evidence, reasoned argument and the truth mean anything to us, or if just winning is everything. Elections have consequences, Facebook users need to consider this and factor it into their use of this social media platform.
If we don’t then we get what we deserve.
9
Zuckerberg is like a modern day robber baron of tech. Facebook and other social media sites should be prohibited from taking political ads if they cannot police them for transparency and truth. If Zuckerberg isn't careful he may get far worse treatment after the 2020 elections and all of his posturing will be to no avail. No one appointed you king Mark.
8
I gave up on Facebook as I began to see my friends go conspiratorial with memes etc. I felt I could no longer admire them. And the falsehoods and ignorance was discouraging.
12
@Suburban Cowboy My friend sent me one such article. Two minutes on Google showed it to be a hoax that had gone viral twice before, in the early 2000's and again a few years ago. She thanked me for correcting the record, but I'm not sure that she went back and told all the others to whom she had sent the same link. By te way, she didn't use FB; she used WhatsApp.
3
Mr. Duterte was lauded by Facebook itself as the “undisputed king of Facebook conversations.”
You are what you laud. Facebook is a curse or historical import, not only for making the rise of Trump and his like possible, but above all for the pervasive feelings of loneliness and hopeless its false promise of connectivity has foisted on the lives of adolescents trying to figure out who they are against a force five hurricane of cynicism and negativity. As for Zuckerberg himself, best case scenario, he knows not what he does. His near hundred billion ought to give him a hint however - it's hardly anything the devil himself wouldn't respond to with a lengthy standing applause.
6
Unless Facebook agrees to remove misinformation and disinformation included in political ads, then it should not be allowed to sell political ads, PERIOD. It is NOT ok to spread falsehoods knowingly. Facebook MUST take responsibility. Congress MUST hold them accountable.
What is happening to our country?
Why is this even a question?
(Of course, for ages now toothpaste ads have been held to a higher truth-telling standard than political ads. Ugh. I'm just lost when it comes to all this. Where is our moral compass? Where is our sense of right and wrong? Where is our dignity as a nation? What is going on?????)
14
Terrific article. Needs wide circulation. Facebook won't change what it does best, make lots of money by grabbing lots of attention. Zuckerberg likes the smell of money. He easily confounds those in Washington.
Is it not possible to exploit what Facebook does without doing it in a crooked way, as Trump? Important question because too many Americans are joined at the hip to Facebook and that won't change. No, Walter Cronkite, you never dreamt this would happen, but it has.
4
Facebook nuked Hillary Clinton and it can nuke anyone's campaign. In the Citizens United corporate personhood culture of unlimited money as free speech there are no financial borders with which to control campaign propaganda that could destroy any candidate. Facebook remains a major if not "the" major problem in today's campaigns. This is why grass roots movements in this nation to overturn Citizens United is essential to restoring our Republic. Facebook needs to be relegated to sharing our selfies and personal items. Our political commentary belongs here - in the public presses - and in public town hall meetings - public forums. Zuckerberg does not grasp this. It needs to be addressed.
12
Facebook poses a fundamental threat to civility and democracy. The so-called “social media” magnate is fundamentally antisocial; it creates an illusion of human interactions and connections, while promoting social isolation, egomaniac, self-center and quite often aggressive behavior cowardly hidden behind a computer screen. This behavior destroys any bit of social awareness and responsibility toward others. Furthermore, for whatever twisted reason, Facebook has become the arbiter of truth; people tend to trust more their “Facebook friends” or whatever they find on Facebook pages, than their own sense and reason.
Elisabeth Warren should be commanded for her courage to challenge and scrutinize the social value of Facebook not for her own, personal gain but for the well-being and future of our society. For Zuckerberg, Elizabeth Warren is an “existential” threat to his company. For Senator Warren and any responsible citizen, Facebook is an existential threat to our democracy.
7
This article is proof that Facebook is a BIG part of the misinformation problem THAT HURTS OUR COUNTRY.
It is one thing to allow dubious advertising for wrinkle cream or nutritional supplements. It is quite another, and damaging to the country to allow demonstrably false political advertising.
Facebook deals in lies and prefers money to truth.
Democrats should call for a Facebook black out weekend to protest and call for a change to their harmful policy of propagating LIES.
7
Zuckerberg is a joke, all be it a rich one. His profits are derived from selling his customer's information and this base product offers nothing that enhances the world we live in. He has a profound lack of commitment to our political process and has no intention of seriously removing false data from his site. His only redeeming quality is that he is one of the few things that both the right and the left can agree on. Worthless.
6
“... a recent announcement by Facebook that it is exempting political figures from its policy forbidding spreading misinformation in advertisements (yes, politicians spreading false claims in their ads is just a part of the political conversation, according to Facebook).“
This is sickening.
Is Zuckerberg a Trump fan?
5
Really? Your argument boils down to: Donald Trump is a better communicator and persuader than the Democrats, and we don't like it, so we're going to prevent him from using the medium he's most adept with. As someone once said, "sad".
1
@Csmith
No, he's just a better liar.
6
Fortunately(?) there's no shortage of outrageously salacious material about Trump that could be spread around on FBook. And it would all be true., no need to make anything up. Warren would be slinging real mud to counter Trump's fake mud. 2020 is going to be a very muddy year.
2
Marc Zuckerberg has made close to $100 billion wrecking American productivity, politics, education, and culture by addicting and exploiting Facebook users. Is that not enough?
Why can't he retire, shut down Facebook, liberate its addicts who can return to email, phone calls, writing letters, and maybe even pulling their heads up from their phones to talk to other people sometimes, and enjoy his mountains of money?
5
@Sage
Because he needs another billion.
3
Most people use Facebook on their mobile devices. Without an app, there's no FB. So where does it stop? Is Apple now responsible for having an app on its iPhone that may have lies on it? What about texting , email? Lies and false accusations are everywhere. Is Gmail liable?
Fox News lies and disseminated dangerous messages. Should they be censored? What about the cable company that carries them?
It's easy to blame Facebook. It's a platform, not a news organization or a filter for the worst that humans have to offer.
1
@Daniel B In fact, we get the leaders we deserve. If we choose to be ignorant and uninformed, and get our news from unreliable sources, we are simply digging our own graves.
1
@Sharon
The problem is that the people who are getting their news from unreliable sources don't know the information is false. Separating fact from fiction requires critical thinking, and that seems to be sorely lacking in the social media age.
2
you don't need algorhythms for this stuff. Trump was all over the cable news channels, all of them, calling in every day, cnn, msnbc, they couldn't get enough of the guy, he was goosing their ratings. Doing a pinochio test on him every once in awhile in no way diminished the benefit he got from that exposure.
3
Back when I was on FB, I noted how many posts failed to have "Edited," which to me was a sign that the person wrote and hit send. Many would do well to write, read what they wrote, think for a few minutes, and then re-write. I certainly do, and often the conclusion was DELETE.
Maybe the algorithm should automatically remove unedited posts.
2
You mean instead of being incinerated by her despicable record of lying about her heritage to game the system, while cheating real minorities out of an opportunity?
Or maybe carpet bombed by her plans to remake the American economic and social systems that work pretty well for precisely the voters she'll have to secure in Lansing and Milwaukee and Scranton to win?
Or maybe the radioactive fallout from policy positions like no restraint on illegal immigration, free health care for illegals, massive taxes to make those who paid for their kids' college pay for other kids' college, the squishy, but massively expensive Green New Deal, or maybe taking away the health care options that work for most middle class people and forcing them on a government program modeled after the Medicare program that loses $60 billion a year in waste and fraud?
Facebook is a BB gun compared to the damage her own record and policies will do t her campaign, once people pay attention.
3
@philboyd Well said. But - I hope people do pay attention.
1
Psychologists have found that fear drives people politically to the right and Facebook seems to be an ideal platform for promoting fear, a staple of Donald Trump and the Republican Party in general. These days it is largely fear of darker skinned people coming to the United States and taking the jobs of white people or receiving benefits paid for by the taxes of white people.
2
Facebook needs an ethics panel with a steel spine- - which can veto false political ads.
3
Facebook in its entirety is an opportunistic virus.
6
Time to ditch useless Facebook.
Craigslist is an good as marketplace, and the rest is all negative.
3
If Mark Zuckerberg has this much power to tip the scales in our elections then we must detach from our addiction to Facebook. He becomes then a puppeteer of the masses. An evil one at that. I think the only thing holding me back are the many photographs and quick access to friends. We can break our dependency America! Can someone create an ethical alternative app? Our democracy is at stake.
3
@KPCarlington
You can't get quick access to friends on Skype, or another program like that? On the phone? Email? Meet for lunch? You know, things that don't steal your personal information and sell it? Things that don't spread lies?
If you're concerned about Facebook's effect on politics, then cut the cord. You can't possibly believe that having access to a few photographs is more important that your democracy. Can you?
Pandora's box is open. If you kill facebook, the same issue will emerge someplace else (twitter, instagram, the yet-to-be-founded latest/greatest replacement). Deactivating your facebook account is akin to burying your head in the sand. Media outlets need to be liable for the publication of intentional falsehoods. Period.
4
I have two words: Cambridge Analytica. Watch the Great Hack on Netflix. This is how Facebook and Trump stole the 2016 election, by targeting individuals they know they could manipulate with disinformation and propaganda in the geographical areas needed to win. This is why Trump’s election is not legitimate and why democracy, not Facebook, faces an existential threat around the world. I’m surprised there is not more outrage from NYT, Democrats and anyone who believes in democracy over this. Yes, Facebook favours people with extreme views, but it also uses personal information to target the vulnerable. Facebook and social media are far more dangerous to democracy than you report in this article.
6
Pardon the question, but don't the USA have some legislation against lies and false or unproven claims in publicity?
2
@I.Keller yes indeed, but cases are much mire difficult to prove in the United States given our Constituional right to free speech.
1
Why just single out Facebook? All the TV networks let candidates and their PACs run dishonest adds full of misinformation. The United States Postal service lets candidates mail you literature filled with misleading information. Radio stations don't fact check the ads that candidates run on their platforms. If you want to attack the effect that falsehoods have on our elections you have to go a lot farther then just shaming Facebook.
1
The mother Zucker has been, and will be, all-in for the GOP.
They give him his tax cuts, and that is all he cares about.
5
Freedom of assembly? We're going to break up Facebook because everyone wants to assemble there and spout their nonsense?
If Facebook doesn't change their false news policy, I will probably drop out. Will you join me?
They have the same responsibility as journalists.
6
Never a Facebooker here, the skies are clear above me now but apparently there are ominous billowing clouds of algorithmic phooey on the horizon. The new slogan for Facebook, "All the news that's unfit to print." It is a good lesson for the citizens of America, lies that get hits are good. Machines, we gladly give our cerebrums up to you. Apparently many people are happy about not thinking for themselves. Thinking for one's self, just another quaint idea that needs to be dropped in the bin. For you free thinkers out there, learn to blend in, a blank stare works wonders.
3
I've written the following in the Reader Comments section before, but it apparently bears repeating:
Facebook should be banned from sponsoring ANY political ads or from providing ANYTHING labelled as "news".
Anyone who goes to Facebook for "news" is someone who would go dumpster diving for their dinner and get their "entertainment" recommendations from what's scrawled on the walls of public restrooms.
And yet we learned after the 2016 election that over half of Americans reported getting 100% of their "news" from Facebook. Literally drinking from the sewer.
Facebook is NOT a "news organization". It's a public sewer for the worst sorts of gossip, misinformation and viral hatred. It has no editors or fact checkers on staff. It simply takes money in exchange for whatever any nefarious powers wish to represent as "news". It claims no obligation to even pretend to be "factual".
So Facebook should not be allowed to represent itself as a credible "news source". It's a digital wall in a public restroom - nothing more. The concept of a "news feed" (particularly one specifically designed to reinforce each subscriber's prejudices) is an abomination in any sane society which values an informed citizenry.
If Facebook wants to be a "news source" - then let it create a separate, firewalled page where all submissions are fact-checked for accuracy and where original sources are credited (much like "The Week" or Readers Digest).
Until then, Facebook is for gossip and cat videos. Period.
7
Let's be honest -- if we forced Americans to choose between free elections and easy access to funny online cat videos, we all know which would win.
1
This reminds of an article the Times ran this summer on how Bolsonaro, the extreme right-wing President of Brazil, owed his victory to the fact that Youtube had, a few months prior to his election, set up new algorithms determining what video the viewer would be sent to next. A year before the election Bolsonaro was not very well-known and not very popular, but the extreme-right in Brazil figured out how to use the new Youtube algorithms very effectively and with a very low budget and small base managed to create a huge following for its divisive, rascist, mysogonistic, homophobic, anti-environmental etc. etc. Youtubers.
It's no stretch to say that Facebook and Youtube have enabled the rise of the extreme right around the world.
3
So Facebook will not require political ads to try to avoid "misinformation". What a commentary on our democracy!
16
I haven’t posted on Facebook in more than a year, and now I am going to take down my page. (The only way to get Mark Zuckerberg to listen is to threaten his flow of money, by the way.) I also stopped watching TV news as soon as Trump was elected. I’ve found that not having to hear that voice or see that face in my living room helps me stay calmer, and I sleep better at night. I still know what’s going on: I read the news on my tablet, and I talk to people. It really does help.
19
“... the specter of a Warren presidency should concern him less than another possible result of the coming campaign: that his platform self-selects for a specific type of candidate.”
Why would Zuckerberg worry about this?
6
@Marc Kagan RIght. As long as a candidate pays his bills, Zuck and Co. seem positively eager to offer their platform to the most rabid of liars and the most destructive discourse.
2
Facebook is one platform. The problem is that Zuckerberg also owns two potentially competing platforms. That gives him too much control over the online communications space.
If Zuckerberg has a problem with Warren's plan, he can divest himself of them in advance.
On the other hand, if Zuckerberg attempts to interfere in the 2020 Democratic primaries or general election, then many will choose to separate themselves from his platforms - and his company's stock price will plummet.
If elected President, Elizabeth Warren will attempt to channel a combination of Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt - and boy do we need their best qualities today.
39
@Matthew Carnicelli
and Eleanor , most especially
5
Mark Zuckerberg cares about one thing, and it isn’t democracy. His visit with Trump was a strong signal about what he’s up to. Why anyone is still using Facebook, I’ll never understand. Leaving that tired platform was the best decision I made in 2018.
40
@Joseph Yes -- and now I want to share this comment to Facebook.
@Joseph I left FB on 7-15-10!
1
Corporations -- and now Trumpists -- are increasingly facing a public relations problem, driven by their moral turpitude. We the public are increasingly on to you, and Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have much to do with our growing awareness. Perhaps of all corporate heads, Zuckerberg is the ugliest in this regard. One might say Zuckerberg and Trump are increasingly digging their heals in to quicksand -- they really don't have a principled argument to make, try as they might. The more they dig, the uglier they seem. I *believe* this ultimately will redound to Warren and hopefully Democrats more generally. Ultimately, truth and relative rectitude are pretty might tools.
12
Doesn't this country have a history of media entities attempting to influence election outcomes, whether that is through endorsements, editorials, programming choices, air time, acceptance of advertising, etc? Why should Facebook be treated differently than these companies in the past have?
1
@Tony Masiello First question: No. Second question: because Facebook acts very differently than legitimate media coverage.
8
@Tony Masiello Because it is different.
1
Isn't it sad that the unmoderated material on facebook had become so degraded intellectually and ethically? Was this really Facebook's goal? Or do they just care more about what makes the most money?
14
@Larry Figdill It is very sad. We can't speak for Facebook's goal at the onset and there are different ways of parsing that. But the way I did, when I read your words, was as if we were back in the late 90s, thinking that the internet would be a boost to a more fully-informed citizenry. That sharing everything so easily would draw deeper connections instead of creating or deepening rifts.
I do think this big experiment/error is partly in having way too much mass trust and faith in the electronic meeting over the meat-space, when clearly the platform cannot offer real human interactions as if people are real out in life together. And then, selfies got really popular, memes and copy/paste and just writing "This!!!" to go with a link became popular, and so on. It's very addictive.
And I think by then, your last question is easily answered! More traffic, more revenue, more ads, more busy-busy-busy. Good things in society rarely happen just because corporations think they are good for society.
1
@Larry Figdill
I'll give you 2 guesses, and the first doesn't count!
1
"...politicians spreading false claims in their ads is just a part of the political conversation, according to Facebook)." Of course it is. Otherwise, who would be the neutral arbiter, when there IS NO SUCH THING? The bias evident in the U.S. press is perfect evidence of this. The adversarial system we've created allows the public to decide who is lying, and who is not. Anything else smack of big brother.
3
Facebook is not going away (unfortunately). It should be regulated like a public utility. So should Google and Amazon -- possibly Apple and Microsoft as well.
8
How to regain your sanity: (1) if you insist on using FB practice mindfulness with every click of your mouse, (2) don't use what you read as a basis for formulating arguments, instead see it as
another opinion that may or may not be connected to a fact, (3)
take a break every ten minutes, talk with a live human or your pet and realize using social media isn't the same thing as being social, (4) stare at a picture of our galaxy long enough to understand how significant your politics are at any given moment...
8
How many people read articles like this, are genuinely concerned, but continue to use FB? If people stopped their FB activity, FB it would be left with only those who abuse it. And, in essence, our protest would be equivalent to that of the brave Hong Kongers. We must decide what the goal is of that sacrifice.
18
@DBR I quit facebook in 2017, and I've been much happier since then. Every time I see the word "Facebook" appear in the news, I feel even more validated in my decision.
3
@DBR What "sacrifice"? I opted out and have experienced zero withdrawal symptoms. I'm sure I've missed some vacation, baby and wedding photos but I lived without them before FB.
3
Warren is her own worst enemy. Her desire to break up Facebook as well as other tech companies is a gigantic blunder. She has made an enemy of an industry that would have likely supported her. There's NO widespread call from the American public to do this! Warren can't abide anything or anyone who has the power or influence to challenge absolute governmental authority. Warren is autocratic with her call for breaking up tech corporations; there's a Government process for that, it is NOT a Presidential prerogative. Warren needs to resolve other issues that are more important than tech giants. If she wants to go after companies that have a huge impact on all Americans, then go after the health insurance & drug companies. We all have a choice as to whether we use Facebook, Google or Amazon, but few of us have a choice about what we use or what happens to us when we get ill. Facebook, like Amazon and Google have the financial muscle to credibly oppose the government in court in a protracted fight. It's a lose-lose situation. This column and Warren's actions are a good example of why progressives will never gain any traction in this country. Leftist zealots are determined to drive the Democratic party off the cliff. It's going to take more than lesson & they're going to get more than one lesson. This debacle will facilitate Trump winning a 2nd term. The excessive amount of attention to this can backfire, with Trump being reelected & it not being the result of Russian interference.
13
“She has made an enemy of an industry that would have likely supported her.” This is precisely the author’s argument—that FB considers itself in the position of making or breaking political candidates. They are at liberty to do so because they are unrestrained by regulations; they are free to make decisions purely on the basis of what benefits them. Anyone uses FB, most particularly those who do so unquestioningly, is their prey and is complicit in degrading democratic elections.
36
@PG Wrong. Here's the real issue. Progressives want a greater say in how Facebook is run. They speak only for themselves. I don't hear a huge outcry for greater regulation from their users. Establishment institutions despise the fact that Silicon Valley is leaving them behind, obliterating their power & influence. They're horrified that the "people" who's will on Earth they posture for will need them less & less. Let's pray that this very positive trend continues. Facebook's entire business model is taking the information you voluntarily provide & using it to target ads at you. Anything you post on the site becomes Facebook's to use. Some nefarious actors (Russians) in rare instances have used your data to accomplish their purposes, but generally, your data is used to decide whether or not to send you ads for feminine hygiene products. There is no right to privacy when you voluntarily give it up. If you don't want FB to have your data, don't use it. Want FB to provide you with a free platform & never to make any money? Then you need to quit Facebook. You can live without it. It's absurd for people to think that FB should provide a service to them for nothing. If internet companies can't make money, they will not provide a service. The selling of your data on Facebook is what has made it a free service. If we want to have a discussion about restricting the ability of these companies to sell your data, then we also have to confront the user demand for everything to be "free".
2
@Bill Brown
The govmt.. WE THE PEOPLE paid for the creation of the internet. Good idea-- make FB charge.
I long ago decided that FB was an Orange Zone. I use it only as a way to open programs from elsewhere (check in via FB) and NEVER interact with others there. well, I have an old friend that posts cute cat photos, but that's it.
6
Facebook is an exemplar of Silicon Valley's new gilded age robber baron malefactor of great wealth.
New technology and business models running well ahead of the legal, political and socioeconomic infrastructure systems ability to determine and assess human costs and benefits
Facebook needs to be busted up.
Facebook needs to be fined and regulated up.
Mark Zuckerberg and his minions need to be criminally investigated and if appropriate prosecuted, convicted and locked up.
36
In other words, Facebook and other social media are literally driving humankind insane by unhinging the boundaries that contain distortions of truth and tribal anger. Those boundaries and the behaviors they regulate evolved over hundreds of generations, and now, like bodies that crave salt and sugar, human minds are binging on toxic input created by Facebook.
24
AOC and the squad seem to be okay with social media. I wonder what they would think of Warren’s plan and toward whatever her end goal would hope to accomplish.
1
@Norville T. Johnson’s It's a pretty safe bet that AOC is completely on board with breaking up monopolistic entities.
22
So, the bottom line is that Facebook is an existential threat to democracy. Time for some regulation.
52
All these years and scandals later, I'm still shocked that so many Americans still participate on Facebook. They forget the maxim "there's no such thing as a free lunch," and allow FB to sell their personal data, to as many customers as will buy it, in exchange for ZERO percent of the profits of these companies that have made their founders and executives billionaires.
In addition to the financial imbalance between company and platform user (and the user is not a client or customer -- the user is actually the product sold to the "real" customer), the numerous privacy breaches, the broken promises of reform, the fact that this platform has so little control over content that it's live-streamed actual homicides, etc. etc., there's something fundamentally parasitic about the way FB operates.
I would never tolerate being in any relationship with a person who would treat me the way FB treats its users. So why would I accept that from a faceless corporation?
We all lived just fine before FB came along. There are other means of doing a lot of what FB allows one to do, without all the downside.
48
Does anyone remember how Facebook started? It was a way of dehumanizing women by making a secret site for Harvard men to rate how attractive their female classmates were. I’m guessing the men that did were no prize themselves. Mark Zuckerberg certainly isn’t.
Facebook isn’t connecting with people you miss, it is a giant corporation selling your data and using game theory to keep you on there longer.
My cousin mentioned at a family funeral that she didn’t feel like she knew my kids because we don’t post. She’s correct, she never leaves town so she is making a choice to not see her family except weddings & funerals.
Facebook is not the answer, making real time to visit or call, or dare I say it, write a letter or an email.
Facebook allowed anyone who was willing to pay them, to sabotage our election in 2016, allowed hate speech and crazy people to proliferate, and they deserve to be shut down as they have yet prove they matter in the grand scheme of things or that they can police their own site.
I say go for it Ms Warren! She would be doing us a huge favor.
128
Many of the people I’ve met on FB are older women who have mobility or physical issues that limit them from such simple pleasures of going out for coffee with a friend. Their excursions out are usually doctor’s appointments. While FB has serious flaws it also provides so many with social contact they would otherwise not have. Use a wider or different lens
1
@Dog walker Thank You
You speak the truth. Is it so wrong to ask those who made such fortunes to contribute to all in real taxes to truly make america great. I like Ike! I wish more republicans would remember him!
1
OK, but if
the Russians are helping Trump
The Ukrainians are helping Trump
The electoral college is helping Trump
Facebook is helping Trump
Big business is helping Trump
Are the Democrats really trying to win, or already making excuses for losing?
9
@Michael Livingston’s
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/technology/facebook-ftc-antitrust.html
Why oh why Elizabeth, did you say you wanted to break up the tech firms? There are problems--Amazon is monopolistic, Facebook and Twitter are irresponsible -- but on the whole, technology companies are more likely to lean blue than any other industry in the economy. Would breaking up Apple or Google really be good for America? Perhaps. But that might go very wrong. If you're concerned about anti-competitive behavior or the ills of social media, why make powerful enemies up front? Why not, instead, wait until after you've won the election to take these issues up?
I have long been a supporter of Elizabeth Warren. Full disclosure, I donated to her Senate campaign. But I am increasingly concerned about her judgement. Her position against private health care frightens voters who would otherwise be happy to vote for her. Due to their perverse incentives, private insurers profit by denying health care. Thus, I agree with Warren that government health care is the best solution--Medicare For All sounds great to me. But for anyone who has dealt with the VA or Social Security Administration--or even Medicare--some skepticism about a solely federal solution is rational. In short, why force people to abandon health care plans they are comfortable with? Let Medicare For All compete with private health care. If Elizabeth and I are right, Medicare will drive private insurers out of business through superior service. Buttigieg says it best -- Medicare for all who want it.
10
@Arturo Belano
Sir, Elizabeth Warren made her claim that Facebook and similar platforms should be broken up based upon principled views about their proper role in a sensible media environment.
As is typical with her [but, one gathers, not with you] she offered her advocacy in the interest of the common good, precisely her motivation in urging the founding of the Consumer Protection Agency.
She does not need your faux-pragmatically driven advice about how to conduct her campaign
57
Friends don't let friends use Facebook.
It's never to late to quit a bad habit.
133
@Byron and remember, Facebook is NOT your friend!
2
@Byron
I've never been on FB, never will. It amazes me how so many people get sucked into this stuff. But then I guess it shouldn't; most people are deeply conformist. It's human nature.
3
Seeing how Facebook official Katie Harbath who drafted Facebook's election policy was the digital strategist for the Republican National Committee and a former Rudy Giuliani campaign staffer, and Zuckerberg has benefitted financially from the Ryan/Trump tax cuts, I'm absolutely confident that Facebook won't attempt to sway the 2020 elections towards Trump again.
Seeing how Zuckerberg/Harbath has already stated they won't take down any Trump ads that contain lies about Joe Biden, we should have absolute faith Facebook will everything possible to do the same should lies crop up about Warren.
30
Face book is already running millions of dollars worth of Trump ads that are proven out and out lies.
Facebook was complicit in aiding Russians interference in the 2016 election in support of Trump.
Zuckerberg is on record as fearing a Warren win.
Facebook is completely controlled by Zuckerberg who runs it like a mini Trump. You can't hide behind a corporate veil when you have complete control of a company.
Like Trump, Zuckerberg puts his own interests over the country and has demonstrated contempt for Democracies both here and in Europe.
Like Trump, Zuckerberg believes Facebook and his personal interests are not answerable to any law.
Zuckerberg should be put on notice that he will personally be held responsible for any foreign interference in this election and that includes criminal liability.
201
@JMC
So throw out Freedom of the press and deny people their ability to express themselves and share information with people ?
Should we also ban the phone system as well? I mean people can call people and who knows what they say.
Sorry but I prefer our freedoms over your censorship.
3
@Norville T. Johnson’s There are limits on constitutionally protected or "free" speech. You can't lie to advance a fraud. You can't yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You can't tell when the troop ship is sailing. Likewise, outright lies that are known by the disseminators thereof to be false, and which are promulgated for the purpose of corrupting the electoral process by deliberate deceit, should not be deemed protected speech under the First Amendment.
13
The rise of the Elizabeth Warren campaign itself could be chalked up to the Facebook algorithm and others like it.
With plans at the ready, Warren naturally flows into the news cycle with every major engaging headline. When there was a school shooting, Warren had a plan. When the yield curve inversion struck and everyone shouted “recession”, Warren had a plan. Even today with LGBTQ rights being weighed by the supreme court, Warren has a plan. I don’t have the data, but I can bet that just like Donald Trump in 2015/2016, Elizabeth Warren has received more earned media than any other candidate based on how her name is naturally flowing into the news cycle.
We can frame this as a fight, but even the hero is being empowered by our algorithm powered modern media system.
7
In the old days there were "whisper campaigns" now we have facebook. Very scary indeed.
For a chilling account of social media manipulation and foreign interference, listen to the recent CBC, TheCurrent, interview
with Christopher Wylie.
(ex Cambridge Analytica)
Senior U.S. officials ignored his information: "Trump isn't going to win." ( 2016)
Did Mr.Mueller mention Mr Wylie's information in his report?
6
One thought I had is that facebook should be treated like a public utility. It should be solely be used as a means of communication and information sharing between people. Each person would be permitted one membership which would require some kind of subscription fee and would permit one facebook page. No advertising would be permitted. No non-individual (e.g., corporate) pages.
People could link whatever websites they wished but would be barred for accepting compensation for making posts, linking other sites, or soliciting compensation in posts. People's data would not be collected or shared. As it is now, facebook is too monopolistic and the dangers and risks it presents (infinite and anonymous distribution of misinformation including defamatory and libelous information, infiltration by foreign influences, criminal conduct, etc.) are incapable of being policed or managed.
7
@Jason we have a way of saying “if my granny had wheels... (she’d be a cart)” I
I strongly support the idea that Facebook should be rigorously regulated but if it would be changed the way you suggest it just would not be FB anymore...
@Jason
This is America ! Follow your idea and go build this if you believe in it.
Facebook is Establishment Media, just as television, radio and newspapers were in their day. Just because it comes with a screen and a keyboard doesn’t mean that it’s new or in any sense empowering.
Nor is it necessary to break the company up, as Ms. Warren irrationally seems to think. It has a natural monopoly, and it can be regulated as other natural monopolies have been regulated in the past.
We cannot really fault Mr. Zuckerberg for wanting to protect the enterprise he has built. Ms. Warren and her supporters have framed this issue the wrong way, and allowed their resentments and jealousies to stand in the way of sound policy-making.
5
@Global Charm, I don’t agree that “Facebook is Establishment Media, just as television, radio and newspapers were in their day.”
Why?
Before Facebook, people had to seek out reliable news sources. If they chose a biased source, at least they couldn’t multiply the reach of that content to hundreds or thousands of “friends” who are too lazy to do their own research.
1
I left FB long ago and will not return. I know when I am being used, and I ain't going for it. I'll get my news from reliable sources - newspapers online, the ones like WP I regularly visit and various sources I pick out randomly to get a range of thought and ideas. I don't intend to die having been a tool.
75
trump's 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, was in charge of social media for his 2016 campaign. In an interview he said that once he figured out Facebook, he knew they could win and that Facebook would be how. Facebook favors the trumps of the world because Zuckerberg/Sandberg and their board of directors want it that way. It's been like this all along. Breaking it up won't change that. They need to go dark before the next election.
34
@Anj - Zuckerberg/Sandberg ARE the Trumps of the world.
3
Totally agree on dark..
1
It seems to me that media moguls have always put the thumbs on the scale for the favorite candidate, or against the candidate that represents a threat to their beliefs. I think what's worse now is that this generation can hide behind their algorithms so as to provide the appearance that they're one step removed from the process. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
28
Here's a suggestion: from now until after the 2020 election, Facebook, conceding that it hasn't figured out a way to handle this problem, should simply reject all political advertising. Compared to the filtration of other kinds of stuff, the identification of political ads is relatively simple. Just take Facebook, at least its targeted ad capabilities, completely out of the process.
207
@Eben
Here's a better suggestion: REJECT FACEBOOK.
The analogy here is that they are at war with us. If you were being attacked by a foreign agent would you willingly participate on their platform??
5
@Matthew Recognizing these issue prior to the birth of Facebook, I have never used it other than to understand it better. Doing so was horrifying, especially as their ad network was rolled out to watch user behavior off their site, as well as on it.
But the from a practical point of view, they have achieved of a utility that, pragmatically speaking, most people cannot abandon. To abandon Facebook and/or its sociopathic media cousins is to opt out of life.
The only path to reigning this in is to regulate it as a utility. And, as I say, since its main feature is psychographic targeting, the only implementable way to deal with the immediate problem is as I suggest above.
2
@Eben Utility?!! Granted people cannot abandon it. We need a methodone-equiv for cold-turkey "social" media withdrawal.
Zuckerberg is not a good Samaritan. His platforms have tremendous influence on elections and he’s done nothing effective to curb false information, disinformation and deliberate manipulations. His primary goals are profit and power. He will say his primary goals are social connection and free speech. Don’t buy it for a moment. Social media is till a new technology that society has not yet learned to deal with. It’s not properly regulated as of yet, and its many downsides are still unmitigated. Keep your seatbelts buckled. Until social media has been assimilated and put within boundaries that keep it from burning us, we’re all still in for a bumpy ride.
426
@Margaret Zuckerberg's bluff needs to be called. Facebook's advanced ad targeting capabilites, based on its surveillance of individuals, is inherently weaponizable. Facebook has conceded this, finally, and that it's a hard problem to solve.
So, at least until after the 2020 election, prohibit targeted political advertising, no matter its source. It'll be expensive for him, but not as expensive as what can happen if he does not.
For anybody who argues that there are methods to create non-political ads that are effectively political ads, let me assure you: the automated identification and classification of this material is a problem orders of magnitude easier than the general one.
So, take Facebook offline politically. No, I Voted stickers, No ads. No targeting.
93
@Margaret
I agree. I really cannot stand Zuckerberg.
Those in tech think he was appointed, and that he did not ascend into his position of power, by an invisible mileau of tech investors and schemers.
"Mr. Zuckerberg is worried that the 2020 election could create existential concerns for the company. "
To Mr. Warzel. Zuckerberg is ALWAYS WORRIED. He never has any faith in what he is doing NOW, and he has postulated that FACEBOOK will in the future be involved in TV and automobiles. How original.
For me, the question is why don't the millenials understand the power of print journalism? Probably, because their parents never read the newspaper, as mine did.
My second religion is fresh and authentic journalism - the news. But that religion originated from having read the paper at age 7, really wanting to read it, fighting for sections of the NYTIMES, and the WSJ.
Generations after the Vietnam War did not have a need to read the "paper".
Forget the social media, push journalism.
8
It's not just FB. All major media networks are allowing political ads that lie. Here in Michigan the major television channels are already filled with RNC and Trump ads that are mainly lies.
39
The psychology says that troubled, hurt children often become frustrated and angry adults who must find something to be angry about. We'll see, this coming election, if there's more dysfunction and free-floating anger that lands in Trump's camp than there is the opposite character -- decent, humble, self-honest, open.
14
Warren supporters (who will be the leading candidate when Sanders drops out) should all stop using Facebook. Money where mouth is.
27
@DSD All candidates, including Trump, should stop advertising on Facebook, not just democrats. But that won't happen :-(
2
Zuckerberg’s comments make him even less credible than he already is (after lying to all of his “customers “ and misusing their personal information). It makes Elizabeth Warren’s proposal seem that much more credible - and necessary.
43
If you don’t like what Zuckerberg is doing quit using Facebook.
18
@Nb It's gotten way too big for that to do any good.
1
What would happen if Elizabeth Warren decided to advertise on Facebook?
@Brian W. I see her ads on Facebook all the time.
2
Facebook's management is absolutely politically motivated, censorious and works with federal spying agencies. If Facebook's management is against Warren, it is for the right wing, the censors and the spy agencies.
14
How to vote intelligently
First, get your news from at least two newspapers, either paper or online version. You get a wider range of news and you get to read it when it is convenient to you. Most newspapers give a variety of views.
Second, always vote. The only way you throw your vote away is to stay away. It is better to vote for somebody who you think is not the best possible than to stay away and get somebody who you think is the worst possible.
You might also want to read “Ten arguments for deleting your social media accounts right now” by Jaron Lanier.
22
This is one thing that happens when narcissism is celebrated. The celebration of winners over the moderating practiced ideal of truth and fair play in society.
30
@uga muga Thank you for identifying the root ot the problem.
Also explains how "we" (figuratively or Jungianly-shadow-like) "attracted" someone as narcissistic as Trump.
Prevent Facebook and all social media platforms from accepting and transmitting any political advertisement starting from say 6 months before the election.
A propaganda and misinformation free environment is what is needed if we want to save our democracy. There are too many forces constantly at work to undo the political and social fabric of our country.
About Facebook, the only thing ordinary people can do is abandon Facebook en masse. This surely will have an impact.
27
All media platforms, digital and traditional, ought to be prohibited from accepting political advertising.
6
One of the more insidious aspects of Facebook that makes Warren's case for breaking up the company does not involve anyone who uses the platform for benign social purposes. Those new Cambridge Analyticas know it. Some will argue that Facebook does not influence how they feel about a candidate, for they do not use that platform. Nonsense. Their outsized-reach dominates all other platforms, including Fox. How can anyone, even those not on it, seriously claim that Facebook has not wormed its way into every aspect of our political conversation, shaped the conversation? Only by electing someone who understands that threat will democracy have any hope of survival. That is the real existential threat.
14
Social media is an open invitation to disinformation. The content generators who traffic only in ideas, and aren't selling and warranting the use of an actual physical product, should be free to say whatever they want, as every opinion writer is here, no matter how spurious the notion advanced. Caveat emptor. Except no one is really a buyer who is merely grazing in the waste dump of social media or, increasingly, the degraded traditional media. It's free stuff, much of it is nonsense of course, but so is much else that one is assaulted with kn a daily basis. We don't get a personal fact checker to help us get along in life. One needs to figure things out for one's self.
6
I’m really starting to dislike the future we are creating. I’m exhausted by all this emotional manipulation.
There is a new Outer Limits episode called “Stream of Consciousness”. I think the closing narration fits “We make tools to extend our abilities, to further our reach, and fulfill our aspirations. But we must never let them define us. For if there is no difference between tool and maker, then who will be left to build the world?”
27
Those of us old enough to remember the old days of newspaper - actual paper, I mean - domination of the news can do a thought experiment: if the local paper had devoted huge amounts of space to conspiracy theories and meeting announcements from white supremacist groups, the owners of that paper would have been banished from polite society, invited to no parties, kicked out of the local country club. I believe part of the problem is Facebook is an international conglomerate with no interest, financial or personal, in the local communities we normal people actually live in. I’m not saying the newspaper days didn’t have their downsides; they did. But Facebook is going to destroy us all, as long as it creates more profit for Facebook.
38
@DF Paul, Facebook and Twitter also provide an easy way to broadcast ridiculous ideas. A case in point: @realdonaldtrump.
If Trump didn’t have access to Twitter, he’d have to rely on the White House website, press conferences, actual news outlets, and his silly little rallies, to get his “message” out. Currently, news outlets give too much attention to Trump’s tweets.
2
Hold social media companies responsible for the content published on their platforms, just like newspapers are held accountable for the content that they publish. That’d be a good start to cleaning up online discourse. Let the big social media companies get sued for publishing liable, slander, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc., just like newspapers can be sued.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act exempts social media from responsibility for what’s published on their platforms— and chaos has ensued. Repeal the exemption and watch online discourse improve. Oh, Zuckerberg will kick and scream. But right now, democracy is getting the stuffing kicked out of it. It’s time for serious action. Repeal the exemption.
74
"The second is a recent announcement by Facebook that it is exempting political figures from its policy forbidding spreading misinformation in advertisements (yes, politicians spreading false claims in their ads is just a part of the political conversation, according to Facebook)."
That statement is a blatant attack on our Democracy and the truth. I removed myself from FB a year ago and I will never, ever go there again.
How is it that this is allowed? EW is right. FB shows that they are willing to corrupt our Democracy and campaigns by allowing politician to lie under the cover of it being "part of the political conversation, ", is egregious. He is literally weaponizing his platform for DT and others like him who use it to take down their political opponents. FB and Twitter have become the "FOX News" of social media.
I am going to be sure that any product or software that I use or buy does not go into FB pockets.
Break him up.
32
If it is understood that the "algorithmic mandate ... provide[s] a distinct natural advantage to those who distort the truth and seek to divide," I don't see what prevents Democrats from evening the playing field by doing exactly the same thing -- although, admittedly, spreading lies about Trump may be more difficult, because the truth already is hard enough to believe.
7
Yes, Facebook is designed to replace knowledge & intelligent debate with gossip & provocation. Mr. Zuckerberg may not be planning to manipulate the gossip in one direction or another, but it would be easy for him to do if he wanted. What most people miss about Facebook is that there is simply no legitimate reason for anyone, any corporation, or any government to have that much power, OR that kind of power. Ms. Warren does not go far enough. Yes, the company should be broken up, but the business model of surveillance, profiling & targeting is incompatible with democracy, and it should be illegal.
37
False information is "part of the political conversation"? How about part of the conversation in the workplace? The family? Perjury is of course taken quite seriously as a criminal act. So Facebook apparently thinks that something that is generally regarded as a felony is just fine in some contexts.
I've never thought that Facebook was well-designed for users. I stopped using it a while ago. There are lots of alternatives that are more appealing. But now that they have put their stamp of approval on lying, I see no reason anyone would want to continue with Facebook.
98
@David Rosen
Yes, why is Facebook and other social media allowed to let people use their systems to commit crimes, with almost no attempt to stop them?
Facebook has many billions of dollars and should be required, not to stop free speech, but to stop people from committing crimes on their sites.
A Russian operative sending false information to targets on Facebook is a crime. Facebook let them use their infrastructure to attack our elections, and seems ready to let them do it again. (By the way the Russian attack wasn't just "a few Facebook ads" or hacking the DNC, it was also hacking into our actual election systems at the state level.)
On darker social media there are people discussing the tactics and strategy of mass murder, sometimes with actual mass murderers.
There is always a danger that tamping down on violent speech will be turned against people who are not violent, but when you have people watching helmet cam videos of mass murder, any of the people that new in advance are part of that criminal conspiracy to commit mass murder. Crime.
This is not the Left. The Left is in circles trying to find a creative consensus to find win/win solutions by listening to all voices and giving everyone equal political power in the decisions.
The Right believes that you must lose for them to win, and claims that lying to promote hate, greed and violence by them against everyone else is only natural, so "the government is the enemy,"
The right cheers Trump's calls for violence.
3
@David Rosen
"stamp of approval on lying" is the quote of the day!
1
@David Rosen Or at least not take any "news" or memes seriously when considering a candidate.
Let's not forget Facebook's important role in spreading hate with genocidal intent in Myanmar leading to violence against the Rohingya population. The UN implicated the company in a report in 2018.
Zuckerberg and his employees know the potential implications of allowing misinformation to spread across their network. It is literally genocide. They've decided ad revenue is more important.
963
@David Clayman
For that reason alone, they should cease to exist.
50
Well said. But is it any different for any other social media? As Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is the message....and in the case of social media it’s mostly superficiality, detachment, and emotional exploitation.
It’s what makes Trump so effective and dangerous as a rabble rouser, and what threatens the base of American democracy—an educated and vigorous citizenry.
12
@David Clayman . Also never forget that Facebook intentionally promoted the fake news articles accusing George Soros of funding the caravans coming from Mexico. So did Trump. So did the nut job that murdered a dozen innocent people in a synagogue. Facebook intentionally promoted those fake stories and conspiracy theories in retaliation for George Soros saying they should be held accountable to the same standards as news outlets if they want to pretend to distribute "news". Zuckerberg has blood on his hand as far as I'm concerned.
65
This is an argument for why we should not lower the voting age to 16.
22
@Jsw The 16 year olds that I know don’t use Facebook. It’s really a platform for older people at this point.
5
@Jsw Only people over 30 use Facebook. Teens left long ago.
2
The article speaks for itself: Mr. Zuckerberg is a clear and present danger to our democracy and provides aid and assistance to Trump, Pence, McConnell, Lindsay Graham and all the other toadies.
105
Agreed.
The corrosive influence Russia had on American politics thru Facebook is an indictment of FACEBOOK, not Russia.
The idea that banning this or that ad ignore the fatal flaw of Facebook and humans. The solution to deceptive ads is not to ban it but follow it up misleading ads with ads that counter the lies.
16
@Unkle skippy
But can you or I afford ads on Facebook in the right sections.
Do you really think somebody would do that? Just go out and lie on the internet?
Of course they would, especially if they're allowed to.
17
Basically, what we have been reading about social media and how it helps people live in their vacuums of love or hate is true. And, nothing drives voters like hate. Trump should give a secretary position to Zuckerberg.
16
Zuckerberg- no. No political ads for either side, please.
20
An antisocial preference is programmed into the Facebook algorithm because it attracts more traffic and therefore generates more advertising revenue.
This sounds like a paradigm for describing the entire internet business plan, not just Facebook's. The big problem: How can we filter out or dissuade reliance on antisocial content without destroying internet freedom of expression. It appears that the profit motive inexorably degrades the process to the level of the lowest common denominator.
The Chinese simply employ brute censorship. It's ugly but it works; Chinese society is more coherent and harmonious than ours, which makes it more efficient as well. We have become paralyzed by internal division. Unleashing the unfettered profit motive onto the internet and according it legally protected First Amendment free speech status are operating to shred the fabric of American society.
A new balance must be struck. What is to be done?
10
@woofer
Thanks for giving the right adjective to the subject of this thread: anti-social media.
1
To answer the headline's question, yes, Facebook could nuke Warren's campaign. It's a frightening thought, too.
The only answer is for Facebook to begin losing American subscribers. We need to get off our addiction to social media, particularly Facebook. It isn't doing our youth, our economy, our elections or our culture any good at all.
I pared down my Facebook pages to almost nothing. I get fewer advertisements and zero posts about candidates. It isn't that hard. Go on, you can do it. You know you want to.
552
@JL22 I get zero ads about politics on Facebook and I belong to a ton of groups, mostly car, motorcycle, military groups.
I feel that if people are influenced to vote for a certain candidate by what they see on Facebook, then that's the problem.
I have never viewed Facebook as a source of news and never will. I don't think Facebook or any social media is the "devil", it's what you make of it.
I wish people would stop using social media as a scapegoat. If all you seek out is political stuff then that is all or mostly what you will see.
15
@Amone Simply because you've "never viewed Facebook as a source of news and never will" does not mean that holds true for everyone. In today's world, more and more people do get their "news" solely from social platforms.
This is not using social media as a "scapegoat", but rather calling out the fact that the very nature of the platform is seemingly designed for abuse.
56
Totally agree. But sadly the right will stay on and then the entire platform will be churning out the vote for the base. I feel like Facebook has taken us back to high school where the loudest unhealthy bullies decide the culture for everyone else.
55
I just deactivated my facebook account. I can't, in good conscience, support Warren and democracy and continue to support Zuckerberg's efforts to undermine both.
327
@Kathryn Neel thank you! I've urged a friend to do the same
28
@Kathryn Neel I made the same decision after witnessing their outsized role in helping elect a charlatan, looking away as their platform was used as a tool in genocide, as well as working directly myself for Facebook and witnessing firsthand that they lie and lie and lie, then when they're caught, issue a meek mea culpa and go right back to lying again.
25
@Kathryn Neel I understand the sentiment, but sticking your head in the sand won't fix it. It only means you will be less educated about your opponents. Social media is not going away.
5
Certainly what Facebook is doing is troubling and should called out. But we should take a step back and take a look back at the effect of all corporate media on our elections. Google can decide what search results can be returned for a given candidate - most people do not look beyond the first page of results and usually just the topmost returned. 90% of our media is owned by six corporations. The Washington Post ran 16 negative articles on Bernie Sanders at a critical period of the 2016 primaries. This paper runs continuous negative articles on Medicare for All - even bringing on Libertarian Opinion writers - the same when you turn on tv “news”.
21
Hopefully, most Americans will get smart and abandon Facebook entirely or limit their engagement to friends and family only, rejecting all political advertising and engagement. In that manner, Facebook becomes another Fox News, catering to a shrinking audience.
46
FB has proven, empirically, to be "the malevolent platform of doom".
MZ certainly has the capability and has expressed his motivation to adjust the dials on his platform to favor his preferred candidate. We should all reject that subversion of our democracy and our electoral process and have nothing to do with it.
Every thoughtful person must give serious consideration to getting off of FB and deleting your FB data.
Leave the trolls and bots and MZ to shout at each other.
71
@LBL
Getting off FaceBook ? Absolutely . Deleting your data ? As recent events have shown even when it comes to individuals of wealth and/or fame .... errr ... good luck with that futile endeavor .
1
Congress either needs to shut down Facebook now before the 2020 election ( of course, this won't happen) or not allow any political ads from anyone to be posted ( just kids and grandkids pics would be ok). This might sound a bit extreme, but it is FACEBOOK THAT IS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO DEMOCRACIES AROUND THE WORLD.
233
@Gary Be careful of posting photos of grandkids. I don't. except for newborn in mother's arms. They can be lifted
for child porn.
I agree with you. They should are dangerous.
5
Pfft, that's not even "extreme" enough, Gary. They've looked away while Myanmar's junta spreaded lies about the Rohingya and Ms. Above-the-President mocked and ignored them; they've straight-up offered "free" internet in India that makes a wild mockery of net neutrality; they NOT-A-BREACHed useds'[sic] info to C'Analytica and others; and what Zuck thinks of the "dumb [un-Fit to Print]s" who still use Zuckerbook is well-known by now.
Don't walk from his services (including Insta, WhatsApp, and Libra)—RUN. There is NO excuse to not firewall them, let alone keep using them.
6
The fact that Facebook is willing to create a special exception to allow politicians to get away with behavior a regular person couldn't is all the proof we need that our country would be better off without it.
Honestly, what would happen if all social media disappeared tomorrow? It has some useful features, but the most useful are the least exciting or innovative: basically, a planner and address book. The features deigned to encourage "engagement" (i.e. compulsive clicking) are awful for human brains and society at large. Of course, some people would experience withdrawal, as any kind of addict would, but I suspect we'd all be better off a month or two down the road.
602
@Shirley0401
Facebook is more akin to a social disease, easily transmitted and very hard to cure.
19
@Shirley0401 If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, people would be happier, and the world would be less influenced by fake news. Congress should shut it down.
18
@Shirley0401
Politics should be off limits for Facebook. They’ve caused too much damage already. Penalty, their voice should be silenced for 4 years.
18
Facebook is also not the preferred medium of young or urban people, in my experience.
Facebook seems more Trumpy because Facebook is the favored "news" outlet of 45+, rural people.
135
@Cousy 81% of people 18-25 use Facebook. It is less popular as people age. A much larger percentage of urban people use it than rural folks. People with higher levels of education and women use it at higher levels than men or people with less education.
For all ages, it is the most popular social media platform behind YouTube, which is #1.
8
@Cousy
Unfortunately, "young or urban people" are not usually the ones who have the greatest impact on electoral college outcomes.
3
@Cousy
So if Warren knows that those rural voters are on Facebook, she should tailor her ads to address their specific economic concerns, such as taxing the 1%, and downplay the liberal, cultural issues.
13
I'd like to see a politician propose a law requiring those seeking to acquire or currently in public office to be truthful in their public statements. It would never pass, but it would be interesting to hear the counter-arguments to such a measure.
52
Well for starters , the first amendment. Who polices the speech and who appoints the speech police. A country with such a law is scary. Why stop at online speech. Let us expand to newspaper, tv & radio!
So that we get it right. Each of us politicians and simple citizens alike will register with the speech police. Any comment will need to be submitted and approved by a body appointed by the state government of the state in which you are resident. We could do prescreening!
Just like the TSA! Each person and any digital device would be registered and our speech could be presumec safe and truthful by our government speech police.
Great idea!
3
Something along the lines of the Fairness Doctrine should be instituted for social media as it relates to political advertising. Reagan and the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.
372
@Russ Wilkey No you're right. Let's let Facebook decide the outcome of our presidential campaigns. Let's not do anything ourselves, because someone might say we were violating their right to free speech.
It is possible to hold someone responsible for what they say in print or online without dispensing with the First Amendment. And someone doing business in the United States shouldn't complain if they are required not to act as a conduit for Russian propaganda trying to derail the American Democratic process.
6